Starting with first principles and the scientific method
America First Books
Featuring ebooks that find a truer path in uncertain times

Kevin Alfred Strom Archive

   

Cannon Fodder, Part 2:
Weapons of Mass Deception

American Dissident Voices broadcast
February 8, 2003
by
by Hadding Scott and
Kevin Alfred Strom

 

Welcome to American Dissident Voices. Today's program, entitled "Cannon Fodder, part 2: Weapons of Mass Deception," was written by Hadding Scott and prepared for broadcast by Kevin Alfred Strom.
 
Erratum. Before proceeding I would like to correct a factual error of minor importance from last week's broadcast. Although the Iran-Iraq War was a military victory for Iraq, in which three-quarters of Iran's tanks, and almost half of its artillery pieces and armored personnel carriers were captured, Iraq did not gain control of the Shatt-al-Arab waterway. We at ADV care about facts. You can't really say that about those promoting a war against Iraq. This week's program will continue to explore the depth of their deception.
 
I'd also like to make it clear that we are in no way partisans of Iraq in their conflict with other powers including Iran. Our purpose is to expose the liars who put White Americans at risk in this Zionist-inspired war.
 
The Gulf War of 1991
 
Although it has never been officially admitted, it is well known that Israel has nuclear warheads. What is less known is that Israel has a biological warfare program. In Britain's London Sunday Times of November 15, 1998 was a report entitled, "Israel Planning 'Ethnic' Bomb as Saddam Caves In," by Uzi Mahnaimi and Marie Colvin. The report states that the Jewish "Institute for Biological Research" at Nes Tsiona southeast of Tel Aviv is working on developing a race-specific virus that will preferentially kill Iraqis. A scientist there said: "They have ... succeeded in pinpointing a particular characteristic in the genetic profile of certain Arab communities, particularly the Iraqi people." That is evidence not only of a biological warfare program, but of an intention to commit genocide in the strictest sense of the word. Nes Tsiona is in the business of developing chemical and nuclear as well as biological weapons -- all the kinds of weapons that we are supposed to suspect that Saddam Hussein might have. A former officer of Israel's intelligence agency, Victor Ostrovsky (The Other Side of Deception) has written the following about this:
 
It was Uri who enlightened me regarding the Nes Zionna [Tsiona] facility. It was, he said, an ABC warfare laboratory -- ABC standing for atomic, biological and chemical. It was where our top epidemiological scientists were developing various doomsday machines. Because we were so vulnerable and would not have a second chance should there be an all-out war in which this type of weapon would be needed, there was no room for error. The [captured] Palestinian infiltrators came in handy in this regard. As human guinea pigs, they could make sure the weapons the scientists were developing worked properly and could verify how fast they worked and make them even more efficient.
 
This revelation about the State of Israel by a former Israeli intelligence agent matches the most harrowing rumors and innuendoes about Iraq, but you won't see any dramatized reporting about Israel's nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons of mass destruction.
 
The State of Israel is really known in the Middle East as a lawless state that bullies its neighbors. During the Iran-Iraq War, Israel invaded and occupied southern Lebanon. They stayed there for two decades. None of the many U.N. resolutions ignored by the State of Israel has ever provoked even a consideration of a U.S. expeditionary force to enforce it.
 
When a pattern of lawlessness like that is allowed to go on, it is unreasonable then to turn around and selectively enforce a law against somebody else who maybe isn't as influential as the big, habitual lawbreaker.
 
Ambassador Richard Butler, the former head of UNSCOM (United Nations Special Commission), has frequently said that Saddam Hussein is "addicted to weapons of mass-destruction." This shows a failure on Butler's part to appreciate the effect of the State of Israel in that region. When you have a neighbor like Israel, you had better be armed. Especially since Iraq had emerged from its war with Iran as a regional superpower, a lot of apprehension that Israel might attack had been expressed by the Iraqis (e.g. "if the United States does not attack us now, sooner or later Israel will," said Tariq Aziz. [New York Times Dec 30, 1990, 10-L col. 3])
 
Saddam Hussein declared in early 1990, "We do not need an atomic bomb. We have the dual chemical. Whoever threatens us with the atomic bomb, we will annihilate him with the dual chemical." The only present nuclear threat that Saddam Hussein could have had in mind, of course, was the State of Israel, which has made an open secret of its nuclear arsenal. This is why George Bush had made a fuss about chemical weapons in 1988, because it was a means whereby Iraq could check the military arrogance of Israel. Recalling Israel's unjustified bombing of Iraq in 1981, Saddam Hussein declared, "I swear to God we will let our fire eat half of Israel if it tries to wage anything against Iraq." Time magazine stated, "Saddam's outburst set off alarms in Jerusalem, " and Time further noted, "Suddenly, Israel's long-presumed nuclear capability, still a monopoly despite Saddam's best efforts, does not seem to be an effective deterrent." Saddam Hussein's presentation of chemical warheads as a counterpoise to Israel's nuclear arsenal was endorsed by Egypt, Jordan, and North Yemen. ["Stumbling toward Armageddon", Time, Apr 6, 1990]
 
( I should mention that in 1990 and 1991 Iraq was attempting to develop a nuclear weapon to balance the nuclear weapons of its enemy Israel. This was unrelated to the IAEA-approved facility that Israel bombed in 1981. This was not a secret nuclear program; Saddam Hussein actually announced on May 8, 1990 that Iraq had succeeded in building a nuclear triggering device. However, Iraq's nuclear program ended with the Gulf War in 1991, a fact that was verified following the defection of General Hussein Kemal in 1995.)
 
Even without nuclear weapons, Iraq's ability to threaten effective retaliation against the Jewish State, thus containing Zionist aggression, represented a new level of defiance. With Saddam Hussein governing a militarily powerful Iraq, the Jewish State could no longer bully its neighbors at will. Iraq's entrapment into a war with the United States followed within months.
 
The chorus-leader of all the Jewish slanderers of Iraq was syndicated New York Times columnist William Safire. George Bush had fallen in line behind Safire prior to the 1988 election, but then apparently didn't move fast enough to satisfy the Jew, because, like some journalistic Shylock, Safire kept dunning Bush in one New York Times piece after another for his personal pound of flesh, the punishment of Iraq that Bush had promised before his election in 1988.
 
( I should mention that in addition to the Zionist Jews like Safire, there were also leftist Jews (e.g. David Korn) who denounced the alleged sins of Saddam Hussein because it was a way to strike at the reputation of Ronald Reagan, who had supported Hussein. Perhaps the so-called conservatives who have joined in the anti-Saddam propaganda choruses of 1991 and 2003 should consider that when they uncritically endorse every story about Saddam Hussein they are damaging the reputation of their hero Reagan as well. Unfortunately, wariness about ramifications is not really a characteristic of conservatives; nor is real analysis of history. Consequently Conservatives are easily conned by the Jews again and again into sawing off the very tree-limbs upon which they are sitting.)
 
After its war with Iran, Iraq suffered from a crushing debt because of necessary weapons purchases from the U.S. and several European countries, and this was complicated by wartime damage to Iraq's oil-production. Iraq's ability to repay its debts was sabotaged by the fact that Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates were pumping much more oil than OPEC quotas allowed, driving down prices. Every one-dollar decrease in the price of a barrel of oil meant 1 billion dollars in lost revenue for Iraq, a huge loss for a country of only 15 million people. In addition, the corrupt Sheikhdom of Kuwait was allowing British Petroleum in Kuwait to steal oil, estimated at a total value of 2.4 billion dollars, by angle-drilling into Iraq. On July 17, 1990, Saddam Hussein delivered a speech in which he accused Kuwait and the UAE of "stabbing Iraq in the back with a poison dagger," at the behest of the United States government. "Hussein does have some tacit support within OPEC," noted Business Week magazine. ["Is Iraq really ready to start a New Gulf War?" Business Week, Aug 6, 1990]
 
It has been a well known fact since the Gulf War of 1991 that the Bush Administration's ambassador to Iraq was consulted by Saddam Hussein on whether the United States would be opposed to his contemplated invasion of Kuwait, and that the U.S. ambassador, April Glaspie, told him that the United States would not care. Once the Iraqi leader had acted on these assurances, however, once he had solved his country's debt-crisis by re-annexing that wayward province of Iraq that had been called Kuwait, then the trap was sprung.
 
In the fall of 1990, a 15-year-old Kuwaiti girl, known only as Nayirah, gave a tearful testimony before a congressional caucus that swayed opinions in the Congress and the American public. The girl told how she, as a volunteer in a Kuwait maternity ward, had witnessed an atrocity committed by Iraqi troops, who allegedly stormed into the hospital, stole the incubators, and dumped 312 babies "on the cold floor to die." Mind you, there were also other Kuwaitis who corroborated her story. The elder Bush thereafter referred to the story on five different occasions. During the Senatorial debate about whether to attack Iraq, seven senators referred to the story, showing that they themselves had been influenced by it, or at least considered it to be an important consideration in the debate. If five of those seven senators had voted against the motion, there would have been no Gulf War. This 15-year-old "hospital volunteer," "Nayirah," turned out to be the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the US, and her story is now well known to have been completely false.
 
Here's another fraud from the 1991 Gulf War that is less well known. It is described in the Christian Science Monitor of September 6, 2002 as follows:
 
When George H. W. Bush ordered American forces to the Persian Gulf - to reverse Iraq's August 1990 invasion of Kuwait - part of the administration case was that an Iraqi juggernaut was also threatening to roll into Saudi Arabia. Citing top-secret satellite images, Pentagon officials estimated in mid-September that up to 250,000 Iraqi troops and 1,500 tanks stood on the border, threatening the key U.S. oil supplier. But when the St. Petersburg Times in Florida acquired two commercial Soviet satellite images of the same area, taken at the same time, no Iraqi troops were visible near the Saudi border - just empty desert.... "That [Iraqi buildup] was the whole justification for Bush sending troops in there, and it just didn't exist," [St. Petersburg Times journalist Jean] Heller says.
[http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0906/p01s02-wosc.htm ]
 
In light of the fact that we and the government of Saudi Arabia were deliberately deceived into war with fake photographs showing a non-existent buildup of Iraqi troops in 1991, how can we possibly have faith in the validity of any alleged evidence that the government could show us now? John MacArthur, the editor of Second Front: Censorship and Propaganda in the Gulf War, says: "These are all the same people who were running it more than 10 years ago. They'll make up just about anything ... to get their way." (Ibid. )
 
In light of the inflammatory falsehood told by the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador posing as "Nayirah"--with the aid of a few collaborators who supported her lie--shouldn't we also be skeptical of the claims of the malcontents aligned with the Iraqi National Congress, who have every reason to lie, because they expect to be installed as the new government of Iraq? These are the people who invented the story that the 9-11 hijackers had been trained at Salman Pak in Iraq, a story that has been uncritically swallowed and regurgitated by many half-informed people who find pleasure in believing it. Whenever you hear that some claim is made by "an Iraqi defector," you should check whether said defector is associated with the Iraqi National Congress. When the so-called Iraqi National Congress first congealed in December of 1990, the New York Times described them as "pro-Iranian Shiite fundamentalists, pro-Soviet Communists, Arab nationalists, and Kurdish separatists," noting that the banned Iraqi Communist Party "once had a powerful popular base inside Iraq" [New York Times, Dec 30 1999: 10-L]. The Iraqi Communist Party had a powerful popular base before Saddam Hussein, that is, and therefore they hate Saddam Hussein, just as the Shi'ites hate him for preventing an Islamic Republic of Iraq. The Iraqi National Congress has told one lie after another so that even the CIA has decided that these people have no credibility, but media-Jews and political Jews are still retailing the INC's rubbish.
 
In light of all the claims made over the years by the anti-Saddam lynch-mob, I really have to laugh when Donald Rumsfeld says that Saddam Hussein is a liar.
 
Post-War
 
Although the excuse for restricting Iraq's weaponry after 1991 was its invasion of Kuwait, the restrictions were tailored not to protect Kuwait -- but to protect Israel. Iraq was prohibited from having missiles with a range greater than 93 miles; that is to say, Iraq was prohibited from having missiles that could reach Israel. Iraq was prohibited from having nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons; that is to say, Iraq was prohibited from having the kinds of weapons that could deter the nuclear
power Israel.
 
Iraq's desire in the past to retain a deterrent and a means to deliver it is quite understandable when one considers that they are in the same neighborhood as the ruthless and nuclear-armed State of Israel. Forget about finger-pointing at Iraq; how many heads-of-state has Israel had lately who were not mass-murderers or assassins? Requiring Iraq to abandon weapons of mass destruction and to make declarations about what they have is very much like requiring somebody who lives in a crime-ridden area to post a sign reading, "Gun-Free Home." Of course they were reluctant to do that. Now that they have done that, the president of the United States, acting on behalf of a regional thug-state, seems to think it is safe to move in for the kill. What country will ever again agree to reduce its armaments for the sake of a temporary peace with the United States that will only be followed by a trumped-up war? In the coming wars, resistance to the United States will be much harder fought, because it is never safe to surrender to an enemy who has neither honor nor mercy. The intransigence of North Korean dictator Kim Jung-il is a completely logical reaction, given that disarmament is seen to be not rewarded but exploited by the United States.

* * *

America has been going down the wrong path in the Middle East for a very long time. We have been risking the life-blood of our economy by needlessly antagonizing the oil-rich states through our support of Israel. And while Jews in the United States and Europe promoted an ideology of multiracialism and open borders in order to weaken the West and consolidate their control here, in Israel they brazenly erected a Jewish racial state complete with torture, execution without trial, concentration camps, curfews, summary murder by death squads, and the development of genocidal weapons of mass destruction. By supporting Israel's expansionist policies and Jewish supremacism, we have made ourselves the target of the hatred of the oppressed and the poor, who are our victims as surely as they are the victims of the Jews.
 
So now we Americans find ourselves beginning -- just beginning -- to pay the price for our support of the Jews. We are paying not only in dollars now, but in American blood.
 
And we are being remade in the image of the Israelis, and that image is the same as the Hollywood image of the "evil Nazi" -- except this time the image is real. Little children are dying because of our support of Israel. There are families who have lived entire lives inside of refugee camps. Hundreds of thousands of innocents have been killed by American firebombs and missiles.
 
Like Israel, America is becoming a "national security state," and our freedom to speak and publish and broadcast is under attack.
 
The Jews have concluded that they cannot win their war against the Palestinians without a big shakeup in the Middle East. They want to dominate the entire region as they now dominate the United States. Their solution to the problems they themselves caused by their genocidal practices is to increase their bullying and their killing by expanding their local war into a world war. And they expect us to be their cannon fodder in that war.
 
We hope that this series has been useful to you in understanding why the Zionist Jews and their White puppets want this war. On next week's program, Cannon Fodder part 3, we'll bring you up to the minute on the war plans of our enemies, and we'll give you a glimpse of the world that is likely to result.
 
Today's program was written by Hadding Scott and Kevin Alfred Strom. This is Kevin Alfred Strom reminding you to remember Orion -- our race is our nation.



.




For the latest contact, donation, and other update information regarding Kevin Alfred Strom, please visit his web page at Americafirstbooks.com. Please also visit kevin-strom.com, and revilo-oliver.com. Prices, addresses, and availability information pertaining to materials cited in his works are subject to change.

Please also visit the America First Institute donation page.

 

 

 

Flag carried by the 3rd Maryland Regiment at the Battle of Cowpens, S. Carolina, 1781

© America First Books
America First Books offers many viewpoints that are not necessarily its own in order to provide additional perspectives.