3-13-04

They call the thing

The "Me Too" Anointment of 2004 or

Skull & Bones Yalie Neocon Kerry Throws Election to Skull & Bones Yalie Neocon Little George

It is my feeling that because of Kerry's Democratic primary no competition wins in Mississippi, Louisiana, Florida and Texas the zioni$t communi$t$ are dancing in the streets. Nothing to stop the Neocons' Mid East "Operation Lent Blood" from starting March 10, if desired. Kerry's coronation is over and everything went as planned.

(Actually I am happy to say Kerry's coronation may not be going as the bad guys planned and I initially thought. It could be political powers expected Kerry to win the Democratic nomination March 2, and if not on the second then for sure March 9. This delegate deal is confusing to me but Kerry may need like 250 more delegate votes to clinch victory. Illinois has some strange way of distributing delegates, I think, which may benefit Kerry so Kerry may cinch the Democratic nomination next week. I hope not.

Kerry recently said the Democrats should unite now. This may be a diplomatic way for Kerry to say, "Don't vote for the other candidates. Coronate me now." I disagree. Kerry is going to win the nomination and no one would think otherwise. The only question is when the final nod arrives? It appears the Administration wants Kerry coronated before the Administration expands the war this spring. Expanding the war will result in the death of more of our fine soldiers, and only heartless America hating Wolfowizie type racist zioni$t communi$t$ believe the war, and the inescapable increase in our fine soldiers dying, should be increased. The longer it takes Kerry to clinch the Democratic nomination the bigger the wrinkle Kerry may put in the Administration's spring war plans. An extended Kerry coronation may save lives and thus a worthy decision for Democratic voters to put on the back burner.

So in the Illinois presidential primary I hope Illinois voters give Edwards, Clark, Dean and all candidates on the Illinois primary ballot lots of votes if this requires Kerry to look to another primary for final primary victory. Kerry should realize the Slow road is the Best Road and the most America highway if it saves lives. Kerry should not be upset if it takes more primaries for him to become the Democrat who faces Bush in November.

The New York times type media is deliberately blairing the public by not discussing or mentioning the rest of state presidential primaries in the news. The media is presenting Kerry as if he is the Democratc nominee and not letting the voter understand the system and that he/she can vote for candidates than Kerry in state primaries. We are a zioni$t media communi$t run country and these unAmericans don't want the people voting. The media's omission is more motive for voters to believe the zioni$t communi$t$ want electronic voting machines without a paper trail so they can throw elections.

Thanks for the picture which came in the mail yesterday. Hope ya'll understand if I don't send you any money. Now on to what I wrote earlier this week.)

The media, Democratic and Republican parties said "Take" and "in on the scheme" Yalie Dean began the "one party, one step" out of the contest when Kerry had only accumulated around 600 of the 2100 necessary state delegate votes to win the Democratic nomination - Yalie Dean played his part perfectly and never missed a "Q".

Dean appealed to, energized and identified young and anti war angry voters. Dean's anti war Administration trouble makers names now on Big Brother's Rolodex and one should assume all Dean's contributors receive Bush Kerry "send money" requests. Gephardt, Braun, Lieberman, Clark dance out with neat twirls on command during Act I. Edwards dances away with a polite "one party, one step" at the end of Act II. Flamboyant Sharpton's "one party, one step" exit introduced Act III, unknowing to Sharpton he was actually dancing the Republican Party favorite step, " The Black Man Double Cross." With all the competition gone Skull & Bones Neocon Kerry still only garners 66 percent of the Democratic primary vote in Texas. Good going Texas.

The paid placard carrying extras dominated the script played around the world - giving a healthy but false impression the Democratic party with nine candidates is NOT part of a one party controlled USA. The image the USA is a competitive fair election system with many wildly happy and enthusiastic unpaid supporters saturated the news. Yea.

Americans voted in primary state elections while the media hammered away telling the voter that Dean, Clark, Lieberman, and all those candidates out were out of the race, leading the voter to think he/she had no choice except to vote for Kerry. Vote for the winner or there is something seriously wrong with you is the subtle message the media sent to channel votes to Kerry. Get this nomination deal over the media blair as a good thing.

The reality of the situation is that with the USA is a one party political system. This leads thinking people to the logical conclusion there is No chance the USA is trying to set up a real democracy in Iraq.

Sixty five percent of Kerry's delegates came from voters when most of Kerry's competition was out of the race. Do you think the New York times types zioni$t media will tell us the pros and cons of WHEN Kerry is crowned and explain to the voter their right to vote for candidates who have dropped out and the benefits of doing so? Nope. The zioni$t communi$t$ are an elite bunch living for the Affirmative Action, by the Affirmative Action, and of the Affirmative Action and the sooner this race becomes a done deal the better in their mind.

Now the world can expect eight months of boring, uncompetitive, commui$t type, unimportant gay, abortion, he said, she said issues which will remain unchanged in sentiment before and after November 2. These issues are calculated to divert attention away from the country's real problems. The "Me Too Anointment of 2004." is a script like that of a movie. The movie depends on manipulation but the outcome was decided before the first candidate filing fee in New Hampshire was paid November 3, 2003.

Oh both so called opposing sides will huff and puff and put on a heck of a show to convince the world the USA is not a one party country. The New York times type media will propagandize America the free. The script will be wild. Good cop bad cop. This unimportant drama, that unimportant drama. The religious right having a large time. You will never hear mentioned the fact the USA and England have already killed 37,000 Iraqi civilians. We will get the entire zioni$t communi$t agenda.

Santa Little George, the biggest spender anointed President in the history of the USA will portray Kerry as a liberal. Good grief! Kerry will convince us electronic voting machines without a paper ballot have no way of cheating us out of our vote - as majority rule through counting every vote correctly is subverted. It will be a two man tag team against democracy and in favor of zioni$m communi$m. Racism and killing Arabs and everyone who does not dance the zioni$t communi$t jig will be presented as cool.

Kerry will say its the economy stupid but have amnesia to the fact high gasoline prices fuels Ponzie Greenspan's pyramid scheme global economy, and of course Bush will have selective amnesia on the subject. Kerry will not mention Israel's nuclear arms program which sells nuclear weapons and supplies to Pakistan, India, North Korea, and to any terrorist the WTO convinces to borrow the money, and neither will Bush. Kerry will support Bush's military agenda which includes sending troops to Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Kurdville and anywhere there is oil to stop the flow. The zioni$t Affirmative Actions will require the laundry of oil and all money through Israel with zioni$t$ getting the expected and normal mafia size cut. Israel will continue building its USA funded Berlin type zioni$t cruelty wall and both candidates will not mention the wall. Kerry will back the draft, draft, draft, kids working for the state, the elimination of guns - mainstream Czechoslovakia type issues.

These are reasons to my mind a better name for the Race for President 2004 is the "Me Too Anointment of 2004." Eric Rudolph getting the needle will put off until after November 2, 2004 - no need to get the religious right questioning the Administration's Divinity during election season.

The proof of the USA one party political pudding is the fact ninety percent of Americans didn't vote in the Kerry Bush presidential primaries and caucuses? Why? The voter has no interest in and does not want his/her vote to imply approval for the USA's zioni$t communi$t corrupt political system.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

(I came to the conclusion and wrote most of the above before I read the following article. The following article basically says there is not a dime's difference between Bush and Kerry. I do want Kerry to win however. We know if Bush wins he and the zioni$t communi$t$ will kill us all, and we can just hope that because Kerry at one time protested the Vietnam war, he is less of a Neocon right wing radical dead set on manipulating a nuclear Holocaust. However what I expect and will be looking for in this coronation will be Kerry's deliberate throwing of the contest to comrade Bush.)

New York times types Big George New World Order zioni$t communi$t Wolfowizie Neocon manipulated train terrorism Draws big Protests in Spain. Pee Dee a happy camper says "Everyone, Spaniards, everyone is going to be a zioni$t slave, and I am going to treat em like trash. Ha. Ha. Ho. Ho."

Man of the Moment: John Kerry

“I do not fault George Bush for doing too much

in the war on terror;

I believe he’s done too little.”

(JohnKerry, 27th February 2004)

All News is Lies
March 8, 2004

By John Laughland
A recent SRA Commentary by Chris Sanders[1] drew attention to the astonishing swiftness with which Howard Dean’s candidacy was displaced by John Kerry’s. Now that the dark horse candidate, Kerry, has indeed won the Democratic nomination, and given that he has campaigned against the Bush administration on the war on terror, what exactly are the foreign policy views of this man who, like Bush, is a member of the Skull & Bones society?

(Why is Little George smirking? He knows the zioni$t communi$t$ have already anointed him President & Kerry will throw him the coronation. )

Kerry’s position was made clear in two speeches, one at the University of California in Los Angeles on 27th February 2004 [2], and the other given on 3rd December 2003 to the Council of Foreign Relations in New York.[3] Both speeches show that Kerry subscribes to all the same doctrines of militarism, worldwide democratisation and interventionism as his rival, the incumbent president.

Kerry told his audience at UCLA that, “Americans deserve a principled democracy … backed by undoubted military might … a diplomacy that commits America to lead the world toward liberty and prosperity.”He called for “a bold progressive internationalism that focuses not just on the immediate and imminent, but insidious dangers that can mount over the next years and decade, dangers that span the spectrum from the denial of democracy, to destructive weapons, endemic poverty and epidemic disease. These are not just issues of international order, but vital issues of our own national security.”

Fine words. So fine, in fact, that they are effectively identical to those contained in George W. Bush’s National Security Strategy of September 2002, in which exactly the same claim is made that America cannot be safe until the whole world subscribes to American values, and until every possible source of tension, including things like AIDS and lack of education in third world countries, has been removed.

Far from calling for a more humble foreign policy than that pursued by George W. Bush, Kerry in fact says he wants “a stronger, more comprehensive strategy for winning the war on terror than the Bush Administration has ever envisioned.” For Kerry, Bush is a wimp. He attacks George Bush for not having caught Osama bin Laden and blames the use of local warlords for this failure: the logical implication of this is that the West should take over that country directly (even though this is just what the current administration is trying to do in getting NATO involved in Afghanistan.) Interestingly Kerry adds that the current arrangements are insufficient to “bring the billion dollar drugs trade under control.” Surely he meant to say “eradicate it”?

Kerry says, “I do not fault George Bush for doing too much in the war on terror; I believe he’s done too little.” Neither the war on terror nor the Department of Homeland Security is enough for Kerry: in the war for American security, the Bush administration “has done nothing or been too little and too late.” George Bush has “weakened” the military, so Kerry promises 40,000 more active-duty Army troops. Kerry has even promised to “strengthen the capacity of law enforcement at home” and to “break down the old barriers between national intelligence and local law enforcement”, even though every first-year student of political science knows that one of the cardinal rules in a democratic state of law is precisely that there should be a firm division between law enforcement and intelligence.

Kerry even reproaches Bush for weakness an Iraq. He said ten days ago, “Their (i.e. the Administration’s) sudden embrace of accelerated Iraqification and American troop withdrawal without adequate stability is an invitation to failure. The hard work of rebuilding Iraq must not be dictated by the schedule of the next American election.” Kerry promises to “stay in Iraq until the job is finished”--whatever the job is--and quotes Franklin Roosevelt against Bush, saying, “It is useless to win a war unless it stays won.” Kerry comments, “This Administration has not met that challenge; a Kerry administration will.” Astonishingly, Kerry even, in the CFR speech, attacked the Bush administration for “jeopardising the security of Israel” and “encouraging Palestinian extremists.” Such nonsense recalls Frank Gaffney’s lunatic attacks on Bush for frequenting “Muslim extremists” (in the form of Grover Norquist).[4]

Kerry’s view of the war on terror is identical to that of Bush and the neo-cons. For them, this is an ideological war. Seeming almost to relish his statement that the war on terror will last indefinitely, and certainly beyond the capture of Osama bin Laden, Kerry says that, “We face a global jihadist movement of many groups … all committed to assaulting the United States and free and open societies around the globe.” He even refers to terrorists in “60 nations”, just as Bush said at West Point on 1st June 2002 that, “We must uncover terror cells in 60 or more countries.” Kerry says, “At the core of this conflict is a fundamental struggle of ideas. Of democracy and tolerance against those who would use any means to attack any target to impose their narrow views … Nothing else will matter unless we win the war of ideas.” Such talk really is just like Bush. In his remarks on Labor Day, 1st September 2003, Bush said, “Our enemies hate freedom” and also referred to the “enemies of freedom” in his address to the joint session of the Congress on 20th September 2001.

Kerry even uses the Bush rhetoric about chaos. “The war on terror is not a clash of civilisations,” he tells us. “It is a clash of civilisation against chaos.” But Bush said in the National Security Strategy of 2002 that “Today, the world’s great powers find ourselves on the same side--united by common dangers of terrorist violence and chaos.” The doctrines of “chaos” and “failed states” are orthodox neo-conservative ones, and Kerry holds both. And like Bush, Kerry is explicitly progressive: he says America should align with the “best hopes of humanity against dogmatic fears of progress and the future”, echoing Bush’s call for a national security strategy will “keep open the path of progress”. And when Kerry says, “Democracy won’t come overnight, but America should speed that day by sustaining the forces of democracy against repressive regimes and by rewarding governments which take genuine steps towards change,” it is little more than the echo of George Bush’s statement to the National Endowment for Democracy that “we watch and encourage reform” (in the Middle East), or his statement in London on 19th November 2003 that “Our part, as free nations, is to ally ourselves with reform, wherever it occurs.”

Kerry claims to attack Bush’s doctrine of pre-emptive war and unilateralism. In the speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, Kerry dwelt at length on the need for more international alliances, while in the UCLA speech he said that Bush’s “doctrine of unilateral pre-emption has driven away our allies and cost us the support of other nations”. But these alleged differences between Bush’s unilateralism and Kerry’s multilateralism are exaggerated. First, President Bush himself explicitly calls for a multilateral approach to the war on terror. In the National Security Strategy, he wrote, “We are also guided by the conviction that no nation can build a safer, better world alone. Alliances and multilateral institutions can multiply the strength of freedom-loving nations,” and he re-stated the America’s commitment to the UN, the WTO, the Organisation of American States and NATO. Indeed, it should never be forgotten that the Bush administration constantly and doggedly claims that the United Nations is the source of the legitimacy of the Iraq war, and that the US-UK attack on Iraq has preserved the credibility of the United Nations.[5]

Secondly, Kerry is, in any case, less anti-unilateralist than he likes to pretend. He told his UCLA audience that, “If I am President, I will be prepared to use military force to protect our security, our people and our vital interests … As President, I will not wait for a green light from abroad when our safety is at stake. Allies give us more hands in the struggle, but no President would ever let them tie our hands and prevent us from doing what must be done.” He repeats several times his readiness to “order direct military action”. Kerry even seems to imply that military intervention might be conceivable in countries which are strong American allies: “We can’t wipe out terrorist cells in places like Sweden, Canada, Spain, the Philippines or Italy just by dropping in Green Berets” (my emphasis).

Like Bush, Kerry promises to act against the “flow of terrorist funds”. Interestingly, he singles out Saudi Arabia for special mention in connection with the laundering of terrorist money, and he accuses George Bush of adopting a “kid glove” approach to that country. Kerry promises to launch a ‘name and shame’ campaign “against those that are financing terror” and to shut them “out of the US financial system”. He also, again like Bush, claims that “we must act immediately to prevent terrorists from acquiring nuclear, chemical or biological weapons.” Kerry even has the cheek to say, in his CFR speech, that “the gravest threats” comes from “terrorists or unstable states” acquiring “weapons of mass destruction”. “As President,” he told the CFR, “I will elevate non-proliferation to the top of the global agenda.” How could it be elevated any further to the top of the global agenda than under Bush?

In the speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, Kerry made exactly George Bush’s claim that America embodies universal values. He quoted Abraham Lincoln whose vision, he said, was “founded on values and the power of an idea, not primarily on wealth or weapons” and that “the use of American power has always been guided by values and principles, not by might alone”. But this is just like Bush, who wrote in the National Security Strategy that, “The United States enjoys a position of unparalleled military strength and great economic and political influence. In keeping with our heritage and principles, we do not use our strength to press for unilateral advantage. We seek instead to create a balance of power that favors human freedom.” Bush has devoted two speeches – the NED speech and the London speech – to America’s mission to promote “freedom”, while he pronounced the word “free” no fewer than nineteen times in his “victory” speech on board the USS Abraham Lincoln on 1st May 2003. Likewise, Kerry told the CFR that America should “once again become a leader for freedom.” In the UCLA speech, Kerry even attacked Bush for allowing the US to be referred to as “the occupying power” in Iraq: no doubt he would have preferred the neo-con label “the liberating power”.

Indeed, in reading Kerry’s speeches one is reminded of nothing so much as of the recent neo-conservative manifesto published by David Frum and Richard Perle, “An End to Evil”. When John Kerry told the Council on Foreign Relations, “I fear that in the run up to the 2004 election the Administration is considering what is tantamount to a cut and run strategy,” one has the impression of reading Frum & Perle who write, “We feel the will to win ebbing in Washington” (p. 5). When Kerry lambasted the administration for contemplating a withdrawal from Iraq – in my view, his fears are unfortunately misplaced – he was doing nothing but echoing the editorial, “Do What it Takes in Iraq”, published in The Weekly Standard of 1st – 8th September 2003 by Robert Kagan and William Kristol.[6] And Kerry’s astonishing attacks on Saudi Arabia, stated in both the UCLA and in the CFR speeches, in which he alleges that funding for terrorism and Islamic extremism come from the peninsula, are identical to those propagated by Frum and Perle in their latest writings.[7] In his CFR speech, Kerry even accused the Saudi interior minister of “hate speech”, and of promoting “wild anti-Semitic conspiracy theories”, just as Frum and Perle call the kingdom “an unfriendly power” (p. 141). Both Frum & Perle and Kerry, moreover, call for radical reform of the intelligence services, Kerry saying that a Director of National Intelligence should be created “with real control of all national intelligence personnel and budgets”.

Perhaps the most intriguing area of agreement between Kerry and the most extreme neo-cons lies in his view of the Muslim world. To be sure, Bush has announced his “forward strategy of freedom for the Middle East”, in a speech to the National Endowment for Democracy on 6th November 2003. But Bush is generally fairly circumspect about being seen as an enemy of Islam. Kerry, on the other hand, says several times that he thinks there is a particular danger in the Islamic world, and that America must tackle it. He argues, for instance, that the principal target for the “war of ideas”, for which he calls, is the Islamic world, where, he says, a large disaffected young male population is easily whipped up against America. Kerry even attacks President Bush for not giving enough money to his programme of democratising the Middle East.

In considering all this, ask yourself the following question: if you were a neo-conservative strategist, with all the huge plans for world-wide “democratisation” which that entails, who would you rather have in the White House? A red-neck Texan surrounded by a bunch of corporate war profiteers, whose very selves excite furious opposition from whole swathes of leftish public opinion in America and around the world, or a smooth multilateralist Patrician with a pleasing mix of patriotic and liberal credentials? Go figure.

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

Since bin Laden is Dead, What is the real reason the USA is sending more troops to Afghanistan and Pakistan?

The real reason the USA is sending more troops to Afghanistan and Pakistan probably has to do with a Wolfowizie Neocon manipulated and planned nuclear attack somewhere soon. Israel has been selling Pakistan and India nuclear weapons. It was recently announced Israel has sold $1.2 billion in military equipment to India recently. It is logical to to think Israel will kickback nuclear bombs and equipment as an inducement to get India to buy arms from Israel.

After Israel sold arms to Pakistan recently nuclear arms stories start circulating that Pakistan sold Iran nuclear equipment. The logical assumption is really Israel is spreading nuclear weapons via arms sales all over the world. Israel has the largest nuclear stock pile in the world since the USA is zioni$t run - what's mine ( USA nuclear weapons) is yours (Israel nuclear weapons).

Who where and when the nuclear device or devices are detonated is up in the air. The decision ultimately lies with the Wolfowies and the Neocons in my opinion. Wolfowiz has been in to multiple terrorist acts quite far from one another at the same time lately. A bit of proof the terrorism is organized by some force, like Big George's New World Order, which has operatives all over the world. Logically Wolfowiz was behind the dual explosions which killed Shiites in Iran and Pakistan.

Why is Wolfowizie zioni$t Neocons probably behind the train terrorism and explosion that killed 200 or so in Spain? Probably the Spain terrorism is designed to get European countries dancing the zioni$t jig more. Also Wolfowizies are probably worried Blair may get replaced and the communi$t$ may have felt the Spain terrorism close to Blair's England will help Blair keep his job and also is a way to tell Europeans "Shut up and quit asking questions." Remember Cheney is the guy who said in a round about way, "Quit bitching about 9/11 or we will give you another one."

There are diversions to cause one to think Wolfowiz is not on the side of Sunni but he is. By far the Shiites has been the receiver of much more brutal ism in Iraq than Sunni.

The USA invaded Iraq because the Neocon Sunni connection was established. Sunni are communi$t$. The Wolfowizies, Neocons, and Big George's New World Order are communi$t$. The Sunni, Wolfowizies, the New World Order, and the Neocons are on the same side. The big headquarters of Sunni is Syria. One can assume Neocon Wolfowiz may manipulate an attack on Syria because Syria will gladly receive their zioni$t benefactors. We can assume Neocon Wolfowiz Mid East offensive will be a spring offensive in which the communi$t$ hope to complete before summer heat sets in. Also the zioni$t communi$t$ may want the dirty deeds behind them so they can be forgotten before the election is in full swing. The Anointment 2004 is really a non issue as far as the zioni$t communi$t$ are concerned - either candidate will rubber stamp their nuclear bombs and global spread of zioni$m communi$m.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

KARACHI - In a clear indication that the spring offensive against suspected Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border will be launched soon, United States Secretary of State Colin Powell is scheduled to arrive in Pakistan on March 17, a visit that comes on the heels of British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw's own journey to Islamabad last week. After Powell's trip, US Chief of Central Command General John Abizaid will also make his way to Pakistan.

In the next sweep, the US is expected to play an active role within Pakistan; however, the mission has been kept secret as this is a very sensitive issue in the country. The owners of major Pakistani press organizations have already been warned against coverage of events showing US involvement in Pakistan. And for foreign media correspondents, new proposals are under review to restrict their movements, as well as monitor their writing.

From Kabul to Jalalabad and from Khyber agency to Karachi, an infrastructure is being put in place, all of which is being supervised by US authorities, to make the spring operations a success. The depth of these plans suggests that the battlefields will heat up in the near future, on both sides of the Afghan-Pakistan border. But whether these steps will actually help the US catch Osama remains the million-dollar question.

zzzzzzzzzzzz

Why did Israel Attack Pakistan's nuclear reactors?

WASHINGTON: Israel, which successfully destroyed an Iraqi nuclear reactor, also considered a pre-emptive strike to destroy Pakistan's nuclear facilities, according to State Department papers released by the National Security Archive, a private research agency.

The question is why? Install high tech spy equipment is my guess. Israel's massive nuclear superiority comes from the USA nuclear program and Israel does not sell nukes unless the USA tells Israel to sell nukes.

RFID tag implanted ? AQ Khan, Father of the Pakistani nuclear bomb, received his technical nuclear support and nuclear supplies from Israel. Israeli supplied blueprints to Khan which enabled Pakistan to build centrifuges to refine uranium to bomb-grade. Israel listened to every word Khan said through implanted RFID tags and infiltrated Pakistan with high tech listening devices while Israel was selling nuclear equipment to Pakistan.

Here is the program. Israel attacks Pakistan's outdated nuclear facilities and then spreads the message via the New York times type media that Israel destroyed the nuclear equipment to keep nuclear equipment out of the hands of Pakistani radicals. Israel's attack opens the door for Israel to approach Pakistan, India, or whatever country as a friend offering a helping hand. In the process of discussing Pakistan's nuclear problems Israel installs high tech listening spy devices, implants RFID tags in key people, and then the USA/ Israel monitors everything Pakistan does with its nuclear development program.

Because of the spy network Israel knows what Pakistan needs and Israel is ready to supply the nuclear equipment from some source Pakistan thinks has no ties to Israel. Israel monitors all aspects of Pakistan's program through its spy equipment Israel placed in Pakistan at the initial meeting.

Because of Israel's spy equipment Israel can easily manipulate events to blame China, Russia, Australia, Pakistan's, this country or that for spreading nuclear program arm sales.

If Pakistan figures out Israel is bugging her and gets rid of the bugs Israel attacks Pakistan again as a means to gain entrance to Pakistan to install more spy equipment. Actually USA satellites do much of the spying, contact with RFID tag implants, so there is very little way Pakistan can keep its secretes from USA/Israel.

Israel uses the same plan to sell nuclear equipment to Libya, China, Russia, Japan, North Korea. Once Israel saturates the world with nuclear equipment it is merely a matter of getting the countries to use the nuclear bombs to kill each other. After North Korea, Japan, China, Russia, kill each other Israel becomes the surviving nuclear power and controls the world with cruel heartless zioni$m the world has lived through the ages. Israel's messiah manifests in the form of a one world giant Gaza strip.

Countries which detect that are being spied upon with very high tech spy equipment should assume the USA is behind, controls, dominates whatever is going on at that location because the USA dominates the high tech spy equipment market. If the USA is responsible for the high tech spy equipment in a given situation then one can assume the USA is responsible for everything going on at that spot. I do not know if I am expressing myself clearly. Whatever country dominates, controls, is responsible for the spying controls, dominates, and is responsible for the nuclear weapons or whatever is going on at a particular spot.