British in control of US foreign policy ? Afghanistan a defensive action only

Posted on Leave a comment

Ambassador Crocker Confirms Coup D?etat


The following news article has been?published at this site to educate Christians that what they believe to?be patriotic and effectual, is only a mask for the eventual suppression?of all that Christians and traditional Americans hold dear ? it is?therefore effective in understanding eschatology [the Biblical study of?end times].

This material is as brief as could be?made and may contain a higher level of writing, and in a few places may?be considered esoteric in terminology.? However the author does not wish?to ?dumb-down? the reader.? Important information needs to be?communicated in all its flavor and as succinctly as possible.? This we?trust has been achieved.


Ambassador Ryan Crocker,?former US Ambassador to Afghanistan spoke to the World Affairs Council?of Western Massachusetts, on 11/12/12, at the Springfield Marriott?Hotel, Massachusetts ? listen to audio:?

In his lecture, entitled,??Lessons From a Long War: The US and the Strategic Challenges of a Broader Middle East.????The?Ambassador was prompted with general queries, from Ken Furst, of the?local council, atop an armchair podium bathed in warm light and a?homespun atmosphere.

The dinner and dialog lasted several hours ending in an audience participation of individual inquiries.

Ambassador Crocker offered serious?dialog concerning ?Green-on-Blue? attacks and humorous anecdotes ? at?times, offering witty comments about political and military partners.

Topics covered his historical activity, general history of the region,?Al Qaeda,?Taliban,?Mujahedeen, Syria, Libya, and Iraq.??On Syria he stated that the?Bashar al-Asad?s?regime?is determined to stay in control, and has the manpower, funds and?equipment to endure a long conflict.??The Ambassador regularly uttered?Kissinger?quip?s of ?bi-lateral discussions,? and ?strategic partnerships? and ?d?tente.?

The Al Qaeda comments were?disconcerting??on their face, since historically, Al Qaeda and bin-Laden?were, early on, known to be a CIA effort used against the Russians in?Afghanistan.??Similarly, the?BBC?has run an expos? program on British TV that debunks the organization as a dirty tricks?ploy of the CIA ? one that got out of hand.??In essence Al Qaeda never?really existed.


A similar?parallel is found in the feigned terrorist; Adam Gadahn, who was exposed?as the CIA actor Adam Pearlman ? whose grandfather was a board member?of the Anti Defamation League.


On an associated issue, the lack of a real Al?Qaeda insurgency adds substance to the long held belief that the Twin?Towers were attacked by Anglophile elements within the US government ??for the purpose of drawing the USA into a foreign war. The evidence is?overwhelming in the following amateur and news videos, from that day,?that at least one aircraft was in fact a KC-767 military aircraft [X?model series] used for Air Force refueling.? The aircraft definitely?shows that it had no windows, only two engines, and was painted medium?to dark gray.? The technical descriptions of what the eyewitnesses saw?are remarkable testimony to the obvious lies and obfuscation spread by?the Bush II administration. ?The KC767 [x models] were not part of the?US strategic inventory but were leased from Boeing Corporation during?2001. ?The contract was dissolved in 2003, and later established for a?proper purchase and USAF inventory.


The picture above is a US Air?Force KC767 -X series, Year: 2001. Ten models were LEASED from?Boeing Corp.?Note its color and?that it has NO windows. Also note that a fuselage addition just?forward of the wings. Present in the Twin Tower attack.

The picture below?is an?American Airlines Passenger?767. Note its marking and windows. Note that is has NO extra?fuselage attachment forward of the wings.


Death of Eye Witnesses

As impossible as it may appear, we are?reliving the Kennedy assignation all over again, but then wickedness?doesn?t claim to be original or brilliant in strategy, however it is?consistent.? The following video will establish the numerically?impossible odds that a host of key witnesses, to the Twin Tower event,?lost their lives expectantly in a plethora of seemingly common events.


Although Al Qaeda?and the Twin Towers are major personas within evolving United States?foreign policy, they are simply milestones of a more energetic hegemony?for Anglo-American supremacy.

Getting-a-Handle on Afghanistan? ???

Ambassador Crocker also covered?Hamid Karzai?s?overriding?desire to prove democratic ideals to his people, via the ballot box and?peaceful transition of government ? noting that Karzai would be?stepping down after elections. Ambassador Crocker noted that Karzai has?decided to build his retirement residence inside the protected Green?Zone of Kabul, as a demonstration of his enduring love of country and?pragmatic tendency toward self preservation.

The ambassador cited 75 TV channels as a?dramatic shift toward peace and continued development within?Afghanistan ? a skewed sound-bite that is somewhat surreal.??Although?television and radio can make for dramatic propaganda, news and?education, this form of communication will not change a violent,?uneducated, and backward nation into a developing state.??From a?historical and common sense approach, establishing law, its daily?enforcement, and the acceptance of moral bounds, are better suited for?the task of measuring dramatic changes in a culture.

Ambassador Crocker acknowledged?disconnect in foreign policy, between the National Security Council?(NSC) and the State Department.??The NSC holds to a strong realist?military approach, while State believes ?moral? considerations are more?relevant, for a foreign policy. ?Except that the moral criterion is?applied to the US, NATO and other forces, not the Afghans.

In response to another query, Ambassador?Crocker acknowledged that there is a special detention center at Bagram?Air Base that holds 600 plus detainees but others put the number at?3,000.??The ambassador said that the Afghani government has accepted the?detainees [prisoners],??under the second protocol of the Geneva Convention????This?corroboration amounts to another Guantanamo styled prison in?Afghanistan that holds prisoners indefinitely, without due process.

The last question of the night [listen?to time set 1.27:30 on the published audio] lighted the subject of the??counter insurgency policy? employed by the US in Afghanistan.??The?question was given impetus by the document, ?Open Door Policy ? Report?From a Tactical Commander,? ?written by?US Army Colonel Harry Tunnel,?past Commander of Task Force Stryker, to the?Secretary of the Army John McHughn, dated 01/20/2010.

(click here to read report)

In his report the Colonel complains:??a lack of professional competence?senior leaders?unwilling to conduct operations that reflect sound military art and science???with the effect,???American?troops are needlessly exposed to increased enemy attack, suffer?casualties, cannot secure or control the indigenous population, and are?not allowed to deny freedom of movement or maneuver to the Taliban.?

The report goes on to cite gross negligence and incompetence of British and NATO leaders, and in specific,?Major General Carter of the British Army.??The partnership of military and political leaders, offers a foreign policy under the acronym COIN, which is described by the colonel as consisting of:???musing from amateurs, contractors, plagiarized journal articles, etc.?

The last question of the night asked of Ambassador Crocker:

?Ambassador,?I just want to touch on the counterinsurgency policy of protecting the?populous rather than engaging the enemy.??This strategy as I understand?it, runs counter to traditional military training at West Point and?Annapolis.??I would like to find out if this particular strategy is?desired by the British NATO Forces.??I understand that their forward?operating bases are so far behind, that they engage in playing Cricket?and drinking tea, rather than engaging the enemy. So ? it goes to the?competency of this war.??Is this a defensive war or an offensive war??

The ambassador, after a long thought, prefaced his answer with:

?You?ve?taken me out of my depth, because I do not understand the difference?between offensive and defensive war.??You fight to?kill?Counterinsurgency is about protection of the populous.?

The ambassador?s comment consisted of?five minutes of rambling, sometimes non-cohesive statements ? filled?with jargon ? granting in summary, that there were command changes?between General?Crystal?and General?Petreas,?whom he offered as the architect of the policy.??Ambassador Crocker?noted that General Petraeus used many sources to design the policy?stating that the,??best counter insurgency is British Northern Ireland,??experiences.

Ambassador Crocker claimed that counter insurgency is, in effect,??protecting the populous,??which,?on its surface, is an absurd statement.??How does one resist an armed?and violent enemy by making daily life suburban, for the populous???He?also suggested that simply killing those who shoot at our soldiers is?not a good idea, since they may be relatives or friends of those we are?protecting!??Again his analysis lacks common sense and logic, however he?was presenting the COIN Doctrine.

Ambassador Crocker corroborated that the command structure within Afghanistan is summarily lead by British General Carter.

A British citizen, who was present at the lecture, engaged the questioner with:??I take exception to your comment.??It is perfectly British to play cricket and drink tea!? ??which?parallels the idea that Great Britain does not know the difference?between civility and war, as long as it?s not their neck on the chopping?block.


Ambassadors are people who have natural?physical and social attributes that make people comfortable; they are?non-threatening.??They are individuals that buy into a lifetime of?service, and this service carries with it the need for discretion, and?the ability to hold things close to the vest.

Those that listen to embassy oratory?must learn to read between the lines ? what was said, how it was said,?how often, and what was not said.??Jargon, idioms of state and ideology,?allow a listener to discreetly find the information he needs, while?ferreting-out the embellished, from the truth.??Men and women of state?are always strained between loyalty and personal honor.??They are not?proficient liars, but use physical and verbal nuances to articulate what?is fact, and what is perceived, and what is just plain bunk. They have?learned to wink at the audience through use of inflections and physical?juxtapositions. The listener must develop eyes to see and ears to hear.

Recent news articles have captioned the?President as, aloof from foreign policy. Concurrently, the exchange?between Secretary of Defense, Leon Penetta, and Senator Sessions, at a?Senate hearing, 3/07/12?and as well, the recent developments concerning?the Benghazi attack, facilitate the idea that US military forces and?foreign policy are being directed from other sources.


Even the recent intrusions into US territory by Russian Akula Class submarines? Russian TU-95 Bear Bomber? eye-brows with the Senate Armed Services Committee, who have?complained that they have not been briefed. Hence, the reason why?Ambassador Crocker said, concerning Benghazi, that the US had good?intelligence, but had trouble identifying just who the enemy was.

Having good intelligence, means they?have ears and eyes on the ground, and are receiving proper data, but to?say they have trouble identifying, means they are confused as to the why?and the who of it.???This means that the US security apparatus has been?expertly and overwhelmingly compromised by double and triple agents,?and as well sleeper spies.??What occurs to be an attack by the Muslim?Brotherhood may actually be orchestrated by surrogates, paid by the?Saudis or the Russians.

Recent expose?s and outings of top?military and security personal will continue for a period of time and?end with arrests and unsolvable deaths.??There is a housecleaning going?on with its expected retaliations.???This problem was first given?national attention by Congresswoman Bachmann when she pointed the public?to a network of ?potential? Muslim Brotherhood spies in the State?Department.

But who spun the security apparatus of?the US to accept questionable personnel for Middle East diplomacy???Was?it not the Clintons, through their counterparts in Great Briton???To be?blunt, it is the British who have dropped the draws of American?diplomacy and security.??We have been filled with English point men,?Islamic spies, Chinese cyber hackers, and Iranian fronts. England?knows them all, and has had useful relations with their key political?players for three centuries.??The Russians are more benign.??They desire?to keep the situation calm, and understand that the English are trying?to position Russia as the probable menace. They must respond with feet?on the ground in order to acquire good intelligence.

It appears that what The Rhodes Scholar,?Bill Clinton could not bring about for the British Empire, in his role?as President, he was able to extract the coup via his wife Secretary?Clinton, and they call it the COIN policy ? a strategic policy of?d?tente, partnerships of defeat, humiliation, and compromise.

An evaluation of the document? reveal that it is uniquely English with its characteristic flamboyance, charm, silly nonsense, and homespun photographs.

The COIN document that has been credited to General?Petreas?is actually written by the State Department.??The following men -David?Kilcullen, former Australian Army admin,?Lieutenant Colonel Matt?Porter, UK Royal Marines and Colonel (Ret.) Carlos?Burgos, U.S. Army, are given the real credit,??for their roles in in the creation of the Guide?????The document is signed by Henrietta?Fore,?ASAID, Robert?Gates, Sec?t of Defense, and Condoleeza?Rice, Sec?t of State ? dated January 2009 ? just in time for a hand off to the new Sec?t of State,?Clinton.

David Kilcullen was a second lieutenant?in the Australian Army and served with administrative staff and as an?instructor.??He holds a PHD in Political Science, and has no record of?combat.??He is the CEO of his own intelligence firm in Australia. He is?known for his counterinsurgency theories which many of his?opponents?suggest are lacking in intelligent value [paraphrased to avoid?obscenities].??He was instrumental in influencing the Bush II?administration to War in Iraq.

The other two COIN counterinsurgency?doctrine writers are Lt. Colonel Matthew Porter, UK Royal Marines, and?retired Colonel Carlos Burgos, US Army.??Neither man has a footprint on?the WEB, from any media or social network or encyclopedic site.??Neither?man can be found in documents at the Royal Palace, White House, DOD, or?DOS; except the grand document of COIN, and one reference to receiving a?royal award ? probably for duplicitous services for the Queen.

In every case there is a laundry list of?ACTORS, as the British call them, which runs back to the English, appearing in print, sometime around the mid 1990?s.??The term ?Actors??can be found displayed on Chapter three?s heading, with a happy photo of?USAID officials discussing welfare enterprises with a local Iraqi?chieftain.

As troublesome as President Obama is, it was he along with the CIA, FBI, DOD and the American public that has been duped!

British hegemony has successfully?directed Europe for 500 years ? suffering a near defeat during WWII. With the US entry into the War, England forged a new alliance?with America.??We have been neglectful, however, of the hypnotizing?persuasion and d?tente power, of English politics.??It has lulled?American leadership into believing that we have an equal status with the?British.??In their eyes, we do not!??England has the longest running?monarchy in the world.??Infused with Anglo-Israelism, its?messianic-monarchy, and the cunning of 1500 years of political intrigue,?England intends to make its place in the sun, free from indentures of?finance and war, at the expense of Europe and even its Commonwealth?states.

Our policy in Afghanistan will?ultimately fail, which is just what the British desire.??They are well?ahead of our foreign policy expectations, because they will not allow a?former colony to be successful in a region where they have?failed.??Secondly, their hegemony paradigm is shifting it response to?world financial trouble and recent Middle East consolidation by the?Muslim Brotherhood.??Britain will play one country off another by?intrigue, as they have done in the past, to counter any social unrest or?military activity near their island paradise.

In the past they sent Karl Marx to?Germany in the late 1800?s, before retiring the troublemaker with honors, within a London cemetery.??Their Marx plan paid off in WWI, when?socialist and communist workers stopped all pertinent German production?and rail service, at the height of the War, by going on strike.

Recently, Britain notified India, its?ecology and technology surrogate, that foreign aid would stop altogether, and has set a policy to encourage India?s regional?leadership, at the expense of Pakistan. Now, how will this activity?bring peace???It won?t, but it will produce a great amount of discomfort?for the US in Afghanistan, and the Middle East.??China and Russia?s?eyes will bulge at the prospect of a power vacuum, as the US retreats?from the Middle East.

The English are troubling all the??actors,? in affect to consolidate Canadian gas and oil?reserves.??England will finally have a strategic reserve of oil, from a?direct and friendly source, at the expense of US and Russian quibbling,?while moving the social and political conflicts from Europe into the?Middle East and Central Asia.??England holds a close symbolic?resemblance to the Biblical Whore astride a beast ? decked to the hilt?with finery.??She pours her propaganda into her victims and quietly?states, ?Who can see me??

The political elite of America have?given over our foreign policy to the machinations of British royalty and?England?s world hegemony by selling us their friends, the Muslims as?wise diplomats and advisers. At WWII it was well understood by Generals?Patton and MacArthur the schemes of the British.?Patton never allowed?Montgomery the stage, where he could give the ?full monty? to US?ability, but instead Patton gave Montgomery the dust of US mechanized?divisions, while in North Africa and Italy.??The same should be done in?Afghanistan, for the survival of our sovereignty, our troops, and US?hegemony worldwide ? and in that dust place all the Islamic counsels out?into the desert air and let them work for a living.

The US government is at a critical point?to become a surrogate in service to Britain, and an ash heap if English?trickery goes awry.???The Congress of the US, and in specific the?Senate, needs to cull back the security enterprises within our country,?especially those that have Islamic origins.?Concurrently, US administrators need to re-analyze and vet key security personnel, and?re-structure from younger enthusiastic and creative analysts, who have?actual on the ground war experience.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *