Sunday, July 27, 2014

367 Malaysia must be destroyed

This blog:

It is my hypothesis that the 2 Malaysian aeroplanes that crashed in the last 4 months  were attacked by the Neocons.

They had the motivation, the means and the opportunity.

It is possible to take over the control of a plane during its flight,and that could very well have happened with MH370.  An American firm ,SPC, has this technology.  Many people think that the planes were taken over during teh 911 attack. There are no pilots who believe taht a very unexperienced pilot is able to manouvre a huge plane into a Twin Tower.  But SPC could do it, from the outside. ( Video )

The Russians saw on their radars that one Buk installation was moved to a lovcation very near to where the rebels are. And from this location the MH17 could be hit with a Buk rocket. But also a Ukraïnan fighterplane could have done the job.

Two aeroplanes crashed , from the same airliner, within 4 months time. Not from a technical reason, but one from an unknown reason, and the other from a 'mistake'made by rebels.
What are the chances?
They are so low that we can be sure: It will never happen again in the future.

So we are obliged to look for
- 'agents' who have reasons to attack Malaysia.
- agents who could perform the attack.  ( Have weapons at the l;ocation, or friends woith weapons)
- who have a good chance to get away with it.

Lets have a look:
1) who whould possibly hate the Malaysians? (And also have 2) and 3) capabilities).

Why  would the Neocons hate Malaysia ? 

A big potential for ethnic strive and civil unrest.
Malaysia is a country with a large population of Malaysans ( 67%)  and a large segment of ethnic Chinese ( 25 %) who immigrated.

Malaysia has a majorituy of muslims : 61%.

The Malayan majority is mostly poor.
Its the Chinese that own all the companies.

This gives, understandably, friction, as it would do in any country.

It was long time president Mahathir who created modern Malaysia. 

He made it into a rather modern and rather rich country.
He made Malaysia one of the famous Asian Tigers.
( Malaysia developed more or less paralell to Singapore, which split off from Malaysia in 1965 and her leader Lee Kuan Yew developed it from a 'fishermans place to a world harbor'. ) 
Like Taiwan before and China afterwards, they produced a lot of goods for 'The West'.

Mahathir not only developed the economy, he also succeeded in keepoing the copuntry together.

Here are some quotes from Mahathir which I take from a book by Tom Plate ( Conversations Mahathir Mohamad. 2011)
-"This country needs the Chinese, but the Chinese must also understand the needs of the Malayans."
- There is 'affirmative action' for the majority: for the 'Bumiputera'.
- Mahathirs recipe to extremists: He talks to them and explains that killing each other is not a solution.  Also: Islam forbids killing of people.

So Mahathir did a great job to keep the peace in a country that is very vulnerable for ethnic and religious strive, also because one smaller group has all the money and all the power.
Then cam e the Asian Crisis:                      

The 1998 Asian crisis:  No IMF robbers,please.
Malaysia was hit very hard by the 1998 crisis.
Another crisis that was helped into existence by Wall Street.
( Read all about it in the 4 pages of a text book which qoute below this blog)

The standard procedure in the region was that the IMF flies in and tells the country that they will be helped with loans, IF they agree that 'The West' wiil be allowed to speculate against their currency in order to bring down the value of their currency and then may be allowed to buy big chunks out of their economy. ( Why else would they take the trouble of organising a crisis?)

Mahathir refused.
He did not want anything to do with the IMF.
Every insider in the world predicted that this was the end of Malaysia.
But it was not. It came through the crisis with no harm done.
Of course Wall Street does not like Malaysia.
And above all: they do not want independent countries ( who refuse to become Wall Street slaves) to prosper.

Mahathir is not afraid to criticise The Powerful. 
M. was always quite outspoken.  That is why the USA suppported Mahathir's opponent, Anwar Ibrahim. In Wikipedia you can read a lot about it: Foreign Policy.
Since 2000 the Neocons rule America directly ( Bush) or by proxy ( Obama, Clinton), and
it is a well known secret that Neocons have probably warmer feelings for Israel than for America.

Mahathir has made some  very strong speeches that were not liked by the jewish people:
( All quotes are from Wikipedia)
In 2003, after the Iraq invasion:
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.
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.
Mahathir also stated that:
"Creating a state for them was thought to be a better solution. It could be if some European territory had been allocated to make a permanent ghetto for the Jews. But of course if this was done then the affected European state would rise in arms and kill all the Jews the way they had been doing before. So the debate was about creating an Israeli state in Uganda, Africa, or somewhere in Latin America or Palestine of course."[97][98]
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.[99]

--  So far the quotes from Mahathir that made the Neocons very angry--- 

Finally this: the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission
Mahathir established the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission to focus on victims of abuse in Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories.
On 11 May 2012, Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and their legal advisers Alberto Gonzales, David Addington, William Haynes, Jay Bybee and John Yoo were found guilty of war crimes. "After the guilty verdict reached by five senior judges was delivered, Mahathir Mohamad said: 'Powerful countries are getting away with murder.’
-- Two airline-disasters, caused by external causa,  both from 1 company,  in just 4 months is ane extremely, extrely low probability. If an airliner goes down, which very rarely happens, the cause is always from technical failure. Not here.

-- The Western MSM were fed immediately with 'solid evidence', to burn 'Russia' as culprit in our brains. That's how you exploit a false flag.  This alone makes them suspect, because there is no evidence found, and as they ( and their minions in Kiev) do have lots of radar and satellite info, why didn't they give that, instead of false accusations?

-- here above I gave examples for the motivation of the Neocons to destroy Malaysia:  they refuse to bow for Wall Street, and they are about the only muslims who do not bow for Israel.   
Instead: they tell what they think and know about them, in clear language. 

There is one last thing that I would like to add here. 
There is a Malaysian lawyer who wrote an analysis about the search for the MH370 in march.
He signals a case of: "Why did the dog not bark?" ( Sherlock Holmes.) 
Its this:
The USA has the very best radar systems andthey arte able to see everything everywhere: even through clouds. Even slightly inder the surface. It;s said they can see the fist of a person. They have systems like these which are no longer secret. So : why did they not help to find the wreckage of the MH370. And even more important: Why did the MSM never touch on this remarkable omission? Why did the dogs not bark?  Here is the whole article.  ( Matthias Chang


From:  Web of Debt. by Ellen Brown. 2008.
Page 252-255 from chapter 27.

Taking Down the Tiger Economies:
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
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
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

Chapter 26 - Poppy Fields, Opium Wars, and Asian Tigers
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
David had stood up to Goliath, but the real threat to the
international bankers was Malaysia’s much more powerful neighbor
to the north. The Chinese Dragon was not only still standing; it was

breathing fire . . . .

No comments:

Post a Comment