Warning: I have spent very little time on this subject. But with my background in 'conspiracies' I may have some useful insight.
Some facts about the plane:
- A Malaysian plane going from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing disappeared on 8 march 2014.
- A normal accident is unlikely: Pilots would have sent out an alarm. Debris would have been found on the traject between KL and Beijing.
- 'Somebody' turned out some instruments ( tracing stuff) during the flight. But not all was turned out. Some signals tell us that the plane changed course.
- The pilots were suspected, but seem to be innocent.
- After 2 weeks of searching and investigating the Malaysian government declared yesterday that they are convinced that the plane fell into the Ocean and that no people have survived.
- Today, on 25 march, there are demonstrations in Beijing: relatives of the passengers do not believe the Malaysian government. They want proof.
Some facts about Malaysia:
- 23% of the population are ethnic Chinese. 70% are Malay or other people from the land.
- The Chinese are rich and powerful, but it's a democracy, so they do not have all political power.
- Human nature is such that a country where a small and identifiable ethnic group is rich and powerfull is a little hard to manage: the people who are the original dwellers feel second-class in their own country and tend to revolt. ( bumiputera)
-Malaysia was an Asian Tiger that was hit hard by the crisis of 1998.
Dr. Mahathir Mohammed, the man who made modern Malaysia:
- Like Lee Kuan Yew made Singapore, mr Mahathir was very, very influential in Malaysia.
- Dr. Mahathir Mohammed succeeded to have the Chinese and the Malays live together without real conflicts, to the enormous benefit of both groups. He proved that it is possible to live in peace in a multi-ethnic country, also when the majority are Muslims who are economically dominated by non-muslims.
- Mahathir is now almost 90 years old and was Prime Minister for 22 years: from 1981 to 2003.
- During the Asian Tigers - crisis Mahathir did not like the IMF to interfere. His ambitious deputy, mr. Anwar did choose pro-America. Mahathir sent Anwar to jail. Was Anwar working together with the the Americans? Was he 'their man' or was he a man of his own?
Mahathir sent Anwar to jail. Al Gore attacked Mahathir for that in Kuala Lumpur, after which Malaysia sent Al Gore out of the country...
- Ellen H. Brown ( Web of Debt) says that Malaysia refused to be helped by the IMF and this proved to be much better off than all those Tigers who accepted the IMF austerity and loans.
Below you will find pages 254 and 255 from her book. I have marked red some important parts.
Some Wikipedia quotes:
Mahathir continued to emphasize Asian development models over contemporary Western ones... he particularly criticized the double standards of Western nations.
Mahathir has always been an outspoken critic of the United States.
Under Mahathir, Malaysia was a staunch supporter of the Palestinian cause, and established diplomatic relations with the PLO.
Some Mahathir-quotes about Israel, the Jews and the Holocaust:
In 2003:
We Muslims are actually very strong, 1.3 billion people cannot be simply wiped out. The Europeans killed 6 million Jews out of 12 million [during the Holocaust]. But today the Jews rule the world by proxy. They get others to fight and die for them. They invented socialism, communism, human rights and democracy so that persecuting them would appear to be wrong so they may enjoy equal rights with others. With these they have now gained control of the most powerful countries. And they, this tiny community, have become a world power.
"I am not anti-Semitic.... I am against those Jews who kill Muslims and the Jews who support the killers of Muslims."
He tagged the West as "anti-Muslim", for double standards by "protecting Jews while allowing others to insult Islam."
He also said "But when somebody condemns the Muslims and called my prophet "terrorist", did the European Union say anything?"
In January 2010, at The General Conference For The Support of Al Quds, Mahathir stated, regarding the Holocaust and Israel, that:
“The Jews had always been a problem in European countries. They had to be confined to ghettoes and periodically massacred. But still they remained, they thrived and they held whole Governments to ransom...Even after their massacre by the Nazis of Germany, [Jews] survived to continue to be a source of even greater problems for the world...The Holocaust failed as a final solution.”
Following the Israeli court’s decision declaring the state blameless in the death of American activist Rachel Corrie, Dr Mahathir wrote in his blog in September 2012:
“I am glad to be labeled antisemitic [...] How can I be otherwise, when the Jews who so often talk of the horrors they suffered during the Holocaust show the same Nazi cruelty and hard-heartedness towards not just their enemies but even towards their allies should any try to stop the senseless killing of their Palestinian enemies."
The conclusion:
Malaysia does not have many ( jewish) friends in the USA, nor in Wall Street and certainly not in Israel.
And now this plane is missing.
It did not have an accident: then there would be debris on its normal traject.
The pilots had to be involved ( some switches were turned by them) , but they were not involved.
They think the plane fell into the sea at a far away place where the sea is 6000 meters deep.
In the mean time the relatives of the victims are protesting agressively before the Malaysian Embassey: they do not trust the Malay government at all.
Here is my premature speculation:
There is a company ( SPC, Dov Zakheim) in the USA that has the technology to take over the controle of planes while they are airborne.
Many people think that this is how the 911 planes were taken over and flew so perfectly into the buildings. Experienced pilots stated that this was a very difficult manoevre for even a very experienced pilot.
Now why would it not be possible that these same people ( who did 911) decided to take this plane over and let it sink in a very remote and deep part of the ocean?
Now it is almost impossible to get the black box and find out about the take-over.
Motives?
It could be a revenge for the non-compliance of Malaysia ( with IMF, with USA wishes, with Israel etc. etc.)
It could be a way to create hostility between the ethnic Chinese and the Malays in order to destabilise the country.
It could be just a test to see if they can do it and get away with it.
So far my speculations.
Some other theory : Salon
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ellen Brown: Web of Debt: ( pages 253-255)
The Asian
Crisis of 1997
Until then, the East
Asian countries had remained largely debtfree,
avoiding reliance on
IMF loans or foreign capital except for direct
investment in
manufacturing plants, usually as part of a long-term
national goal. But
that was before Washington began demanding
that the Tiger
economies open their controlled financial markets to
free capital flows,
supposedly in the interest of “level playing fields.”
Like Japan, the East
Asian countries went along with the program.
The institutional
speculators then went on the attack, armed with a
secret credit line
from a group of international banks including
Citigroup.
They first targeted
Thailand, gambling that it would be forced to
devalue its currency
and break from its peg to the dollar. Thailand
capitulated, its
currency was floated, and it was forced to turn to the
IMF for help. The
other geese then followed one by one. Chalmers
Johnson wrote in The
Los Angeles Times in June 1999:
The funds easily
raped Thailand, Indonesia and South Korea,
then turned the
shivering survivors over to the IMF, not to help
victims, but to
insure that no Western bank was stuck with nonperforming
loans in the
devastated countries.6
Mark Weisbrot
testified before Congress, “In this case the IMF not
only precipitated the
financial crisis, it also prescribed policies that
sent the regional
economy into a tailspin.” The IMF had prescribed
the removal of
capital controls, opening Asian markets to speculation
by foreign investors,
when what these countries really needed was a
supply of foreign
exchange reserves to defend themselves against speculative
currency raids. At a
meeting of regional finance ministers in
1997, the government
of Japan proposed an Asian Monetary Fund
(AMF) that would
provide the needed liquidity with fewer conditions
than were imposed by
the IMF. But the AMF, which would have
directly competed
with the IMF of the Western bankers, met with
strenuous objection
from the U.S. Treasury and failed to materialize.
Meanwhile, the IMF
failed to provide the necessary reserves, while
insisting on very
high interest rates and “fiscal austerity.” The result
was a liquidity
crisis (a lack of available money) that became a major
regional depression.
Weisbrot testified:
The human cost of this depression has been staggering. Years of
economic and social
progress are being negated, as the
unemployed vie for
jobs in sweatshops that they would have
previously rejected,
and the rural poor subsist on leaves, bark,
and insects. In
Indonesia, the majority of families now have a
monthly income less
than the amount that they would need to
buy a subsistence
quantity of rice, and nearly 100 million people
– half the population
– are being pushed below the poverty line.7
In 1997, more than
100 billion dollars of Asia’s hard currency reserves
were transferred in a
matter of months into private financial
hands. In the wake of
the currency devaluations, real earnings and
employment plummeted
virtually overnight. The result was mass
poverty in countries
that had previously been experiencing real economic
and social progress.
Indonesia was ordered by the IMF to unpeg
its currency from the
dollar barely three months before the dramatic
plunge of the rupiah, its national currency. In an
article in Monetary
Reform in the winter
of 1998-99, Professor Michel Chossudovsky
wrote:
This manipulation of
market forces by powerful actors constitutes
a form of financial and economic warfare. No need to re-colonize
lost territory or
send in invading armies. In the late twentieth
century, the outright
“conquest of nations,” meaning the control
over productive
assets, labor, natural resources and institutions,
can be carried out in
an impersonal fashion from the corporate
boardroom: commands
are dispatched from a computer terminal,
or a cell phone.
Relevant data are instantly relayed to major
financial markets –
often resulting in immediate disruptions in
the functioning of
national economies. “Financial warfare” also
applies complex
speculative instruments including the gamut of
derivative trade,
forward foreign exchange transactions, currency
options, hedge funds,
index funds, etc. Speculative instruments
have been used with the ultimate purpose of capturing financial
wealth
and acquiring control over productive assets.
Professor
Chossudovsky quoted American billionaire Steve Forbes,
who asked
rhetorically:
Did the IMF help precipitate the crisis? This agency advocates
openness and
transparency for national economies, yet it rivals
the CIA in cloaking
its own operations. Did it, for instance,
have secret
conversations with Thailand, advocating the
devaluation that
instantly set off the catastrophic chain of events?
. . . Did IMF
prescriptions exacerbate the illness? These countries’
monies were knocked
down to absurdly low levels.8
Chossudovsky warned
that the Asian crisis marked the elimination
of national economic
sovereignty and the dismantling of the Bretton
Woods institutions
safeguarding the stability of national economies.
Nations no longer
have the ability to control the creation of their own
money, which has been
usurped by marauding foreign banks.9
Malaysia
Fights Back
Most of the Asian
geese succumbed to these tactics, but Malaysia
stood its ground.
Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad said
the IMF was using the
financial crisis to enable giant international
corporations to take
over Third World economies. He contended:
They see our troubles as a means to get us to accept certain
regimes, to open our
market to foreign companies to do business
without any
conditions. [The IMF] says it will give you money if
you open up your
economy, but doing so will cause all our banks,
companies and industries
to belong to foreigners. . . .
They call for reform but this may result in millions thrown
out of work. I told
the top official of IMF that if companies were
to close, workers
will be retrenched, but he said this didn’t matter
as bad companies must
be closed. I told him the companies
became bad because of
external factors, so you can’t bankrupt
them as it was not
their fault. But the IMF wants the companies
to go bankrupt.10
Mahathir insisted
that his government had not failed. Rather, it
had been victimized
along with the rest of the region by the international
system. He blamed the
collapse of Asia’s currencies on an orchestrated
attack by giant
international hedge funds. Because they
profited from
relatively small differences in asset values, the speculators
were prepared to
create sudden, massive and uncontrollable outflows
of capital that would
wreck national economies by causing capital
flight. He charged,
“This deliberate devaluation of the currency of
a country by currency
traders purely for profit is a serious denial of
the rights of
independent nations.”
Mahathir said he had appealed to
the international
agencies to regulate currency trading to no avail, so
he had been forced to
take matters into his own hands. He had imposed
capital and exchange
controls, a policy aimed at shifting the
focus from catering
to foreign capital to encouraging national development.
He fixed the exchange
rate of the ringgit (the Malaysian national
currency) and ordered
that it be traded only in Malaysia. These
measures did not
affect genuine investors, he said, who could bring in
foreign funds,
convert them into ringgit for local investment, and apply
to the Central Bank
to convert their ringgit back into foreign currency
as needed.
Western economists
waited for the economic disaster they assumed
would follow; but
capital controls actually helped to stabilize the
system. Before
controls were imposed, Malaysia’s economy had
contracted by 7.5
percent. The year afterwards, growth projections
went as high as 5
percent. Joseph Stiglitz, chief economist for the
World Bank,
acknowledged in 1999 that the Bank had been “humbled”
by Malaysia’s
performance. It was a tacit admission that the World
Bank’s position had been wrong.11
No comments:
Post a Comment