Red September: An "American Hiroshima" as Pre-Text for Attack on Iran
Websites that cover what is really going on have been abuzz with alarm. It seems that the same people who orchestrated the 9/11 false-flag operation (Bush, Cheney, etc.) are in final preparations for an even grander terrorist attack on the "Homeland". To that effect, a few days ago, on August 24-25, leading 9/11 activists and war protesters such as Webster Tarpley, Cindy Sheehan, and Cynthia McKinney, formally issued the stunning Kennebunkport Warning.
Friday, August 31, 2007
Red September: An "American Hiroshima" as Pre-Text for Attack on Iran
by Chris Carlisle
The article at hand has been written to serve as a fairly comprehensive overview of how we have gotten to this point. Citing leading researchers, we shall review how the stage has been set, who some of the players are, and what the "show" may look like. The most stunning point of this article is that it goes on to speculate about the nature and consequences of the upcoming attack, pinpointing a specific date as only one week away. But please, at least skim to that point as it is important to understand the overall picture.
A Second 9/11, to be Blamed on Iran
Canadian researcher Michel Chossudovsky of the Centre for Research on Globalization has been at the forefront of research into 9/11 and preparations for further false-flag terror. In an article entitled "The Pentagon's "Second 911"", he brought to light how, "In the month following the 7/7/2005 London bombings, Vice President Dick Cheney is reported to have instructed USSTRATCOM to draw up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. Implied in the contingency plan is the certainty that Iran would be behind a Second 9/11." Chossudovsky quoted an earlier article by Philip Giraldi:
The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing—that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack—but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections. (Attack on Iran: Pre-emptive Nuclear War , The American Conservative, August 2, 2005)
As a compliment to Cheney's preparations, in April 2006, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld approved further plans for retaliation against terrorists which:
offer a menu of options for the military to retaliate quickly against specific terrorist groups, individuals or state sponsors depending on who is believed to be behind an attack. Another attack could create both a justification and an opportunity that is lacking today to retaliate against some known targets, according to current and former defense officials familiar with the plan... This plan details "what terrorists or bad guys we would hit if the gloves came off. The gloves are not off," said one official, who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the subject. (Washington Post, April 23, 2006)
In a second article, "Nuclear War against Iran" (originally published in early 2005 and updated in February 2007), Chossudovsky explained how such an attack is being pre-packaged and sold:
The war agenda is based on the Bush administration's doctrine of "preemptive" nuclear war under the 2002 Nuclear Posture Review.
Media disinformation has been used extensively to conceal the devastating consequences of military action involving nuclear warheads against Iran. The fact that these surgical strikes would be carried out using both conventional and nuclear weapons is not an object of debate.
According to a 2003 Senate decision, the new generation of tactical nuclear weapons or "low yield" "mini-nukes", with an explosive capacity of up to 6 times a Hiroshima bomb, are now considered "safe for civilians" because the explosion is underground.
Through a propaganda campaign which has enlisted the support of "authoritative" nuclear scientists, the mini-nukes are being presented as an instrument of peace rather than war. The low-yield nukes have now been cleared for "battlefield use," they are slated to be used in the next stage of America's "War on Terrorism" alongside conventional weapons.
Operation Iranian Freedom
An attack on Iran doesn't necessarily have to include nuclear weapons. In a February 19 article for the New Statesman, "Iran - Ready to attack" , Dan Plesch revealed that American military operations for a major conventional war with Iran were virtually complete. These preparations extend far beyond targeting suspect WMD facilities and would enable President Bush to destroy Iran's military, political and economic infrastructure overnight:
British military sources told the New Statesman, on condition of anonymity, that "the US military switched its whole focus to Iran" as soon as Saddam Hussein was kicked out of Baghdad. It continued this strategy, even though it had American infantry bogged down in fighting the insurgency in Iraq.
The US army, navy, air force and marines have all prepared battle plans and spent four years building bases and training for "Operation Iranian Freedom". Admiral Fallon, the new head of US Central Command, has inherited computerized plans under the name TIRANNT (Theatre Iran Near Term).
The Bush administration has made much of sending a second aircraft carrier to the Gulf. But it is a tiny part of the preparations. Post 9/11, the US navy can put six carriers into battle at a month's notice. Two carriers in the region, the USS John C Stennis and the USS Dwight D Eisenhower, could quickly be joined by three more now at sea: USS Ronald Reagan, USS Harry S Truman and USS Theodore Roosevelt, as well as by USS Nimitz. Each carrier force includes hundreds of cruise missiles.
Then there are the marines, who are not tied down fighting in Iraq. Several marine forces are assembling, each with its own aircraft carrier. These carrier forces can each conduct a version of the D-Day landings. They come with landing craft, tanks, jump-jets, thousands of troops and, yes, hundreds more cruise missiles. Their task is to destroy Iranian forces able to attack oil tankers and to secure oilfields and installations. They have trained for this mission since the Iranian revolution of 1979.
In any case, whether or not nuclear weapons are employed, the consequences will be sobering. Returning to a Chossudovsky for a third article, "The Unthinkable: US-Israeli Nuclear War on Iran" (which lists a host of other important background articles from Global Research on the topic), he states:
If such a plan were to be launched, the war would escalate and eventually engulf the entire Middle-East Central Asian region.
The war could extend beyond the region, as some analysts have suggested, ultimately leading us into a World War III scenario.
In this regard, the structure of military alliances is crucial. China and Russia have entered into far-reaching military cooperation agreements with Iran. The latter have a direct bearing on the conflict. Iran possesses an advanced air defense system as well as capabilities to target US and allied positions in Iraq and the Gulf States, as demonstrated in recent military exercises.
On February 1, National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski echoed this sentiment, warning the Senate Foreign Relations Committee:
A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks, followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure; then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the US blamed on Iran; culminating in a 'defensive' US action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan."
Brzezinski is the consummate insider who seems to get a thrill out of his geopolitical foresight. In his prophetic 1997 tome, The Grand Chessboard, he wrote, "as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat." (p. 211) On 9/11/01 the threat was "perceived" and the US has been right at the center of the world chessboard ever since.
Two Liebermans with a Single Drumbeat of War
In line with predictions, this summer things have been heating up. On July 2, the U.S. military accused Iran of a direct role in a sophisticated militant attack that killed five American troops in Iraq, portraying Tehran as waging a proxy war through Shiite extremists. US Army officials laid out the evidence in press conference in Baghdad's Green Zone.
On the same day, Senator Joseph Lieberman told the Hartford Courant, "The United States government has a responsibility to use all instruments at its disposal to stop these terrorist attacks against our soldiers and allies in Iraq, including keeping open the possibility of using military force against the terrorist infrastructure inside Iran." Lieberman reiterated his belligerent stance in a July 6 Op-Ed article in Wall Street Journal entitled, "Iran's Proxy War":
No responsible leader in Washington desires conflict with Iran. But every leader has a responsibility to acknowledge the evidence that the U.S. military has now put before us: The Iranian government, by its actions, has all but declared war on us and our allies in the Middle East. America now has a solemn responsibility to utilize the instruments of our national power to convince Tehran to change its behavior, including the immediate cessation of its training and equipping extremists who are killing our troops.
Several days later on July 10, after meeting with NATO and EU officials, Israel's minister of strategic affairs, Avigdor Lieberman, stated "If we start military operations against Iran alone, then Europe and the US will support us." An article in Israel Today elaborated, "Lieberman said the Western powers acknowledged the severity of the Iranian nuclear threat to the Jewish state, but said that ongoing conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq are "going to prevent the leaders of countries in Europe and America from deciding on the use of force to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities," even if diplomacy ultimately fails."
Chertoff's Gut Reacts
On the same day that Israeli minister reported on the green light to attack Iran, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff told the Chicago Tribune's editorial writers:
I believe we're entering a period this summer of increased risk. We've seen a lot more public statements from Al Qaeda. There are a lot of reasons to speculate about that but one reason that occurs to me is that they're feeling more comfortable and raising expectations. In the last August, and in prior summers, we've had attacks against the West, which suggests that summer seems to be appealing to them. I think we do see increased activity in South Asia, so we do worry about whether they are rebuilding their capabilities. We've struck at them and degraded them, but they rebuild. All these things have given me kind of a gut feeling that we are in a period of increased vulnerability.
Reactions to Chertoff's gut feeling were swift and strong. Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick voiced the views of many: "I don't think any of us are able to plan or prepare on a gut feeling. If there's information, we expect it to be shared.... Frankly, I don't think it is helpful to have the secretary of homeland security telling us what he feels. He should tell us what he knows." Echoing that sentiment, House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), sent Chertoff a stern letter requesting details. Of course he didn't get any! (BTW, did you know that Chertoff is a dual citizen of the US and Israel?)
On the other side of the political fence, White House spokesman Tony Snow backed Chertoff with the statement: "I'm glad we've got a Homeland Security secretary that worries about it all the time." Likewise the Editor of Homeland Security Today website pandered:
Remember something: At the cabinet level, "gut feelings" are not mere indigestion. They're a distillation and synthesis of intelligence, briefings, experience, knowledge and educated guesses. Cops get gut feelings about suspects, hunters about animals, prosecuting attorneys about criminals. Homeland security professionals should get them about terrorists and hurricanes. If someone as controlled and restrained as Chertoff says he has a "gut feeling" about a potential terrorist attack this summer, instead of condemning him, we should listen carefully and be alert. I, for one, am grateful he expressed his concerns in public.
And once again, the spin was spun back to Iran. Infamous Iran-Contra operative Oliver North blogged:
Mr. Chertoff's queasiness — my word not his — is well founded. The months ahead are very likely to be — as he put it — a period of "increased risk." It's not just because of "seasonal patterns of terrorist attacks" or "recent al Qaeda statements." Rather, the greater threat of terrorist activity is very likely tied to a perception, widely supported by the U.S. press and an increasing number of politicians, that the west cannot stabilize Iraq or Afghanistan and will therefore "withdraw" from the unprovoked war radical Islam is waging against us.
Ever since liberal Democrats took control of the U.S. Congress in January, there has been much in the Western media to encourage those who are dying to kill us...
But signs of collapse in Washington and London are a source of great encouragement to the principal sponsor of death and disorder in the Middle East — the radical theocracy in Iran.
On the Huffington Post, Philip Giraldi again reminded readers about Cheney's obsession with Iran:
It is widely believed that Vice President Dick Cheney and his national security adviser David Wurmser have deliberately limited the playing field because they have no desire to engage Iran amicably and are instead fixated on regime change in Tehran as the only acceptable solution to the "Persian problem." Cheney has been ably seconded by fellow hawk Elliot Abrams at the National Security Council, who has been working to undercut Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's efforts to avoid a war. Wurmser, meanwhile, has been advising the like-minded at the American Enterprise Institute that Cheney does not believe in negotiations and has promised that the Bush Administration will deal with Iran militarily before its term of office ends.
Intelligence Estimates Stoke the Fire
On July 12, U.S. intelligence chiefs met at the White House to discuss a 5-page report entitled "Al-Qaeda better positioned to strike the West." Compiled by the National Counterterrorism Center, leaked sections of the report stated that al-Qaeda is "showing greater and greater ability to plan attacks in Europe and the United States". It added that the network is "considerably operationally stronger than a year ago" and has "regrouped to an extent not seen since 2001." More ominously, the U.K. Times was told that US and British intelligence services monitoring al-Qaeda networks had picked up "an increased level of chatter." It certainly causes one to wonder. Just what are the al-Qaeda networks chatting about? Surely US government wiretappers know precisely. But later they will claim they just didn't connect the dots!
At the same time as bleak intelligence was being emitted, Chertoff backpedaled from his "gut feeling" comment, stating "we don't have any specific information about an imminent or near-term attack on the homeland." Air Force General Victor "Gene" Renuart further generalized the assessment: "Am I concerned that this will happen this summer? I have to be concerned that it could happen any day."
Any day now, for certain, a new National Intelligence Estimate is due out. The contents, of course, will be of little surprise: more finger-pointing at Iran. The report:
anticipates little progress in getting Iran to halt its nuclear program or stop supporting militant groups in the region, officials familiar with the draft said on condition of anonymity because the report has not been released... It is one of four reports the intelligence community is wrapping up on the Persian Gulf. Two others look at Iran's nuclear program and its military and conventional threat.
In an article posted just a week ago "Are Bush & Co. Gearing Up to Attack Iran?" former CIA analyst Ray McGovern states that the latest NIE has been ready since February but sent back four times "no doubt because its conclusions do not support what Cheney and Woolsey are telling the president and, through the domesticated press, telling the rest of us as well." Basically, the report has not been sufficiently "cooked" (remember the Nigerian yellowcake?) McGovern includes the interesting speculation about two recent Administration defections:
it seems possible that Rove, who is no one's dummy and would not want to be required to "spin" an unnecessary war on Iran, may have lost the battle with Cheney over the merits of a military strike on Iran, and only then decided -- or was urged -- to spend more time with his family. As for administration spokesperson Tony Snow, it seems equally possible that, before deciding he had to leave the White House to make more money, he concluded that his stomach could not withstand the challenge of conjuring up yet another Snow job to explain why Bush/Cheney needed to attack Iran.
For whatever reason, Alberto Gonzalez has now joined the list.
And in the last few days, George Bush has weighed in with his own threats against Iran. In an August 29 article, The Manchester Guardian reported:
George Bush yesterday ramped up the war of words between the US and Iran, accusing Tehran of threatening to place the Middle East under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust and revealing that he had authorised US military commanders in Iraq to "confront Tehran's murderous activities".
In a speech designed to shore up US public opinion behind his unpopular strategy in Iraq, the president reserved his strongest words for the regime of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, which he accused of openly supporting violent forces within Iraq. Iran, he said, was responsible for training extremist Shia factions in Iraq, supplying them with weapons, including sophisticated roadside bombs. Iran has denied all these accusations.
Attack Would Boost Bush and GOP
Returning to the potential "trigger" for an attack on Iran, an attack on our "homeland", let us pose the detective question Cui bono? Who would benefit? In a radio interview with Hugh Hewitt in early July, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum stated "Between now and November, a lot of things are going to happen, and I believe that by this time next year, the American public's going to have a very different view of this war, and it will be because, I think, of some unfortunate events, that like we're seeing unfold in the UK." In the same interview, Santorum also hyped the necessity of "confronting Iran in the Middle East." Once again an impending attack on the US was linked to a confrontation with Iran. It would seem to be a standard talking point.
In a similar vein, the new chairman of the Arkansas Republican Party, Dennis Milligan, told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette this summer, "At the end of the day, I believe fully the president is doing the right thing, and I think all we need is some attacks on American soil like we had on [Sept. 11, 2001]. And the naysayers will come around very quickly to appreciate not only the commitment for President Bush, but the sacrifice that has been made by men and women to protect this country."
This GOP strategy is stated boldly in Arkansas, but it actually stems right from Washington, DC. As reported by Capitol Hill Blue on November 12, 2005:
A confidential memo circulating among senior Republican leaders suggests that a new attack by terrorists on U.S. soil could reverse the sagging fortunes of President George W. Bush as well as the GOP and "restore his image as a leader of the American people."
The closely-guarded memo lays out a list of scenarios to bring the Republican party back from the political brink, including a devastating attack by terrorists that could "validate" the President's war on terror and allow Bush to "unite the country" in a "time of national shock and sorrow."
Paul Craig Roberts -- a former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under Reagan was quoted as saying: "The administration figures themselves and prominent Republican propagandists ... are preparing us for another 9/11 event or series of events," he said. "You have to count on the fact that if al Qaeda is not going to do it, it is going to be orchestrated.
One of the most notable and well-researched articles on this whole topic was posted by Webster Tarpley at rense.com on July 21 with the sensational title "Cheney Determined to Strike in US with WMD this Summer; Only Impeachment, Removal or General Strike Can Stop Him" Co-author of George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography and author of 911 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA, Tarpley has dissected state-sponsored terrorism for decades, amassing evidence that George Bush, Sr. and Dick Cheney are kingpins of corruption and terror. His comprehensive and colorful writing is a must-read. And his warnings carry weight.
In his article, Tarpley wrote that the "Cheney strategy has always been to orchestrate a climate of public terror" and that the Cheney doctrine "calls for a nuclear attack on Iran in the wake of a new super 9/11 terrorist provocation (coming from the bowels of the US intelligence community)." He has dubbed Cheney and his followers the "Cheneyacs." Tarpley cited Cheney's Friday the 13th scare (April) reminding the American public (for the umpteenth time) to remember 9/11 and added how, two days later (April 15) on Face the Nation, Cheney claimed the greatest current threat is terrorists armed "with a nuclear weapon in the middle of one of our own cities." It is indeed noteworthy that, while there are many possible means of terrorist attack (i.e. conventional, chemical, biological, nuclear), Cheney specified the nuclear threat.
War Gamers Plan for American Hiroshima
Someone who has been much more diligently disseminating the nuclear terror storyline at taxpayer expense is FBI consultant Paul Williams. In his book Day of Islam: The Annihilation of America and the Western World, Williams outlined how al-Qaida is trying acquire and detonate nuclear devices on U.S. soil. (The government is so hard up to spread this propaganda, you can actually acquire the book for free.) In a recent NewsMax article entitled "Chertoff's 'Gut Feeling' Could Be a Nuclear Detonation," Williams came up with the following "intelligence":
<!--[if !supportLists]-->1) <!--[endif]-->Days before Chertoff made his announcement, ABC News reported that a secret law enforcement report prepared for homeland security warns that al-Qaida is preparing a "spectacular" summer attack. On Tuesday, ABC News also reported that "new intelligence suggests a small al-Qaida cell is on its way to the United States, or may already be here."
<!--[if !supportLists]-->2) <!--[endif]-->Adding more fuel to the mounting fears, FBI Director Robert Mueller confirmed to NewsMax that al-Qaida intends to detonate a nuclear device that would kill millions of Americans. He said that the threat is so real he lies awake at night thinking about the effects of such an attack. These unprecedented announcements are based on the realization that al-Qaida has achieved its goal of developing nuclear and radiological weapons for a simultaneous attack on seven to 10 American cities...
<!--[if !supportLists]-->3) <!--[endif]-->News of the American Hiroshima -- the plan to detonate seven nuclear devices in seven major U.S. cities -- was uncovered from the laptop of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, al-Qaida's military operations chief, who was arrested in Karachi on March 2, 2003...
<!--[if !supportLists]-->4) <!--[endif]-->When questioned by CIA and ISI officials, Sharif al-Masri, one of the collared terrorists, said that several of bin Laden's nukes had been forward deployed to Mexico for transport into the U.S. by Latino street gangs. This report was supported by Hamid Mir, the only journalist to interview bin Laden and al-Zawahiri in the wake of 9/11. Mir confirmed from his sources that the weapons had arrived in the U.S. and were being readied for the next attack on American soil. He also said that he recently interviewed an Egyptian scientist who had lost an eye while testing one of bin Laden's nuclear weapons in the Afghan province of Kunar.
<!--[if !supportLists]-->5) <!--[endif]-->Further alarms of al-Qaida nukes on American soil were sounded in recent months by British intelligence following the interrogation of 45 Muslim physicians involved in the recent terrorist attacks in London and Glasgow.
Williams concludes, "Will the American Hiroshima occur this summer? The answer to this question is anyone's guess. Most experts agree that the bombs are in place and are being prepared for detonation. But the timing remains uncertain since bin Laden is a model of patience. His favorite Islamic verse is as follows: "I will be patient until I out-patience patience." It is hard to be patient with the likes of Williams and Mueller. For if experts really do agree about the bombs are in place, then why isn't the FBI stopping them!?! Probably because they are actually ensuring that the "terrorists" are placing the bombs, just like they did in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing!
In September 2005, ABC's Primetime interviewed another "expert" who has been making good money spreading the nuclear scenario. The piece, Experts' Keys to Surviving a Nuclear Terror Attack; How You Respond in Event of Attack May Determine Your Chance of Survival, begins:
Imagine this worst-case scenario: a 10-kiloton terrorist nuclear device, constructed with stolen Russian uranium, parked in a small van in one of the busiest intersections in America.
In the moments after the blast, everything within a half-mile radius would simply cease to exist.
Bottom of Form
That's the scenario documented in an unpublished Department of Homeland Security document, first reported by the National Journal, and obtained by "Primetime."
The report describes an attack in Washington, D.C. But in New York City, according to the report's formulas, the damage would be even more devastating.
Within a half mile -- 10 blocks -- "several hundred thousand people would be killed either by burns, by debris, by the blast, or by exposure to radiation," said Jerry Hauer, the former director of New York's Office of Emergency Management and now an ABC consultant.
However, Hauer adds that if such a blast were to take place in New York, there is also some good news. "If you look up and you see it, you've got a chance. You're not part of that initial blast," he said.
Jerry Hauer is a player who was intimately involved in 9/11. He helped former FBI agent John O'Neill (who was aggressively pursuing al-Qaida but ordered by his superiors to back off) to get his job as head of security at the World Trade Center and actually had dinner with him the night before 9/11; it was to be O'Neill's last supper. On 9/11 itself, when Dan Rather asked him about explosives being placed in the towers, Hauer firmly countered that it was fires that had destroyed the buildings. In the next terror attack, will Hauer again be expertly "spinning."
The Primetime article contains an interesting statement: "At detonation plus 15 seconds, the aftermath would look chillingly similar to 9/11. But rising up five miles into the air above the city would be an iconic -- instantly recognizable and completely deadly image: a mushroom cloud of radioactive dust." Of course, the mushroom clouds that appeared when the Twin Towers were destroyed were one of many tell tale signs that something much more powerful than airplane fuel had been at work. In fact, debate still rages as to whether micro-nukes themselves were part of the explosive cocktail that destroyed the Twin Towers.
In 2006, the RAND Corporation published a study for the Department of Homeland Security entitled Considering the Effects of a Catastrophic Terrorist Attack. Out of all the possible scenarios, the following was chosen: a terrorist-detonated nuclear explosion in the Port of Long Beach, California. The report states dryly: "a series of strategic decision making games were executed with leaders from the government and the emergency response community." In fact, many of the participants were insurance industry executives, which resulted in an undue regard for liability. Consider the following excerpt:
Washington D.C.—0700 PST (1000 EST)
The enormity of the social and economic catastrophe is finally becoming clear in Washington. The humanitarian crisis and recovery needs are beyond comprehension, orders of magnitude greater than the largest hurricanes or earthquakes experienced in modern times. The long-term consequences of the loss of the Long Beach port, which handles 25 percent of container traffic into the United States and 70 percent of the traffic from Asia, the semi-permanent evacuation of a significant fraction of the L.A. area, and the cascading effects on the national economy will be huge. The federal government is committed to both solving the humanitarian crisis and minimizing the effects of the attack on the economy to the greatest extent possible, while providing security against future attacks.
Key elements of the federal responsibility for the economic impacts from the explosion are addressed by the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (TRIA), which was extended for another year in January 2005. At this point, the key outstanding issue for TRIA is whether the explosion was a foreign terrorist attack. No responsibility has been claimed; though there are suspicions that Al Qaeda is responsible. In light of this uncertainty, there have been no public statements regarding the applicability of the TRIA provisions.
While the magnitude of the economic damage is unknown, it is clear that it will be staggering, causing the Secretaries of Treasury and DHS to convene an ad hoc insurance and property advisory task force to recommend immediate actions to mitigate the losses and impacts.
At 6 pm the group is convened. The group is provided with an update on federal response actions currently taking place in the Los Angeles basin and draft memoranda that summarize current and projected problems.
The RAND study makes for an interesting read as it shows the way high level Homeland Security "gamers" expect things to go down. It also explains the importance of wind patterns and nuclear fallout and which agencies will be involved in the aftermath.
Homeland Security officials again revisited the scenario in April 2007 in a day-long confidential workshop called "The Day After", which assumed the detonation of a 10 to 15 kiloton bomb, similar in size to the weapon that destroyed Hiroshima. The session was organized by a joint Stanford-Harvard program called the Preventive Defense Project, including Stanford's William Perry, a secretary of defense in the Clinton administration, and Harvard's Ashton Carter, a senior Defense Department official during the Clinton years. (In 1998, Carter co-authored an article in Foreign Affairs with 9/11 Commission shill Philip Zelikow, which anticipated the 9/11 attacks.) Participants included retired Vice Adm. Roger Rufe, a senior official at the Department of Homeland Security who is currently designing the government's nuclear attack response plan (expect to hear his name in the near future), and other military and government officials. An article on the meeting concluded:
Perhaps the most sobering issue discussed was the possibility of a chaotic, long-term crisis triggered by fears that the attackers might have more bombs. Such uncertainty could sow panic nationwide.
"If one bomb goes off, there are likely to be more to follow," Carter said. "This fact, that nuclear terrorism will appear as a syndrome rather than a single episode, has major consequences." It would, he added, require powerful government intervention to force people to do something many may resist -- staying put.
Fred Ikle, a former Defense Department official in the Reagan administration who authored a book last year urging attack preparation, Annihilation from Within, said that the government should plan how it could restrict civil liberties and enforce a sort of martial law in the aftermath of a nuclear attack, but also have guidelines for how those liberties could be restored later. (SF Chronicle Friday, May 11, 2007)
Isn't it interesting that Ikle chose the same term, "annihilation", in the title of his book as FBI consultant Williams? Can we expect to see that term in headlines and news articles on the real day after?
Some "Sort of Martial Law"
So just what "sort of" martial law can we expect? If the nation goes to "red alert", freedom of movement and association would be suspended. Sid Casperson, New Jersey's director of the office of counter-terrorism and a former FBI agent, explained, "Red means that all noncritical functions cease. Noncritical would be almost all businesses, except health-related." The brochure put out by his office states: "The state will restrict transportation and access to critical locations. You must adhere to the restrictions announced by authorities and prepare to evacuate, if instructed. Stay alert for emergency messages."
Alex Jones has been warning of martial law for years; his website has various pertinent articles. In "Foundations are in place for martial law in the US," Ritt Goldstein explained the nefarious role of FEMA:
FEMA, whose main role is disaster response, is also responsible for handling US domestic unrest. From 1982-84 Colonel Oliver North assisted FEMA in drafting its civil defence preparations. Details of these plans emerged during the 1987 Iran-Contra scandal. They included executive orders providing for suspension of the constitution, the imposition of martial law, internment camps, and the turning over of government to the president and FEMA.
A Miami Herald article on July 5, 1987, reported that the former FEMA director Louis Guiffrida's deputy, John Brinkerhoff, handled the martial law portion of the planning. The plan was said to be similar to one Mr Giuffrida had developed earlier to combat "a national uprising by black militants". It provided for the detention "of at least 21million American Negroes"' in "assembly centres or relocation camps". Today Mr. Brinkerhoff is with the highly influential Anser Institute for Homeland Security. Following a request by the Pentagon in January that the US military be allowed the option of deploying troops on American streets, the institute in February published a paper by Mr Brinkerhoff arguing the legality of this. He alleged that the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which has long been accepted as prohibiting such deployments, had simply been misunderstood and misapplied.
In the 2002 article, "FEMA's Plan for Mass Destruction Attacks: Of Course It's True", Christopher Ruddy reported that:
On June 19, FEMA posted a special bid notice for one of the agency's largest contract awards ever - offering contracting firms $300 million for a five-year contract to simply prepare plans to create temporary housing on a scale never before imagined, and then stand by. This is reportedly one of the largest contracts ever awarded by FEMA for a disaster preparedness program. The name of the program is entitled "Standby Technical Assistance for Disaster Related Operations."...
The real purpose of the Standby Program was made clear to potential contractors at a meeting held on July 10 at the Department of Education headquarters in Washington. FEMA officials met with the representatives of firms seeking the bids. Approximately 100 people attended the meeting. FEMA officials made very clear that the purpose of one of the most massive undertakings in the agency's history was to prepare for potential mass destruction attacks on U.S. cities. Sources who attended the meeting tell NewsMax that most of the meeting dealt with how the firms should handle biological, chemical and nuclear disasters.
Since it was a 5-year contract starting in 2003, might we presume that these relocation facilities are now fully operational?
Whichever term you choose to use, relocation, detention, or concentration camps, the idea is certainly scary. What is even scarier is, although there has been a complete media blackout on this issue, there seem to be hundreds of these camps already built and ready to go online! Many of them are masquerading as other facilities. For example, one citizen has reported:
Hawthorne, Nevada is the home of a large military bomb/explosive/missle facility. My travels take me through Hawthorne as I travel from Las Vegas to Reno quite often. In the span of the last several months, I have seen HUNDREDS of warehouses go up; like 7-8 hundred. These warehouses are surrounded by chain-link, razorwire fences and resemble every modern prison anyone's seen. The warehouses are three story, a-frame roof, (resembling cell blocks for sure),no windows, and not wide enough to house any aircraft other than Cessna 172s.or similar small crafts. I cannot see room for elevators etc. for any type of bomb/missle storage handling. This bomb facility in Hawthorne is 99% underground bunkers. I dont think they are suddenly switching to above-ground bomb storage. I'll leave it to you to make any revelations and deductions.
In a February 14, 2003 article, the Washington Post reported that Washington DC area schools were planning to prevent parents from picking up their own children in the event of a terrorist attack. (Happy Valentine's Day from the Post and DHS!) Although it may be hard to believe, Alex Jones reported of an ominous practice drill that occurred Friday, March 21, 2003 at Milbourne Elementary School in the small town of Milbourne, Arkansas:
The distraught father told me that after his son told him that he was denied food and was forced to watch the "red alert" videos for three or four hours a day. He reported that school employees told the children that they were not going to be allowed to leave. Then men in dark blue uniforms with rifles locked the children and their teachers in their classrooms. The children's fear intensified when they noticed that their teachers did not know what was going on and were afraid themselves, trying the lock in vain attempts to get out.
The children were then marched outside where flat faced prison-style school buses were waiting. The parents I talked to said their children clearly saw "US ARMY" on the side of the buses. The children were then marched back to their classrooms and the uniformed men (not local police) disappeared. The children were only then allowed to go home.
Could this be what's in store for children and families all over the US when the country goes to Code Red?
Martin Luther King famously warned that the amazing thing about Nazi Germany is that it was all legal. In an article entitled "Three Threats to Freedom", John Loeffler provides a useful and important summary of how such a situation could come to the United States:
Executive order was the means by which Germany was converted from a Republic into a Nazi dictatorship in just three months. Executive Orders are issued by the president and appear in the Federal Register for 30 days. If there is no challenge by Congress, the order then becomes law. Similar to EOs are Presidential Decision Directives, such as the secret PDD25, which allows for the use of U.S. troops in UN operations without congressional approval-in violation of the Constitution.
There have been thousands of executive orders written by presidents since the 1940s. Most of these consist of administrative housekeeping. However, a few orders involve much more than the efficient management of the nation. They virtually suspend constitutional rights and provide dictatorial powers to the executive branch of the government in a time of real or contrived emergency. There is no provision for how long a state of emergency can last.
If the president were to declare an emergency, for whatever reason, Congress's consent isn't required. Executive orders give the government the power to act as an unaccountable dictatorship. In addition, authority does not flow from the president to the governors of the various states during the emergency, but rather through the director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and his regional directors. The states are totally bypassed.
Executive Order 10995 empowers the government to take over all communications media: radio, television, newspapers, magazines, CB, HAM, short wave, telephones, satellite and the Internet. The First Amendment would be suspended.
Executive Order 10997 allows the government to control all electric power, petroleum, gas, fuel and minerals.
Executive Order 10998 gives government control of food and farm production.
Executive Orders 10999, 11003, and 11005 control transportation, including private automobiles, highways, waterways, rail lines, airports and public storage facilities. Government can seize any vehicle.
Executive Order 11001 allows for the seizure of health, education, and welfare functions, including hospitals, pharmaceuticals, and schools.
Executive Orders 11000, 11002 and 11004, perhaps most disturbing of all, provide for the registration and relocation of individuals as the government sees fit, including separation of families based on the perceived needs in dealing with a declared crisis. These orders also provide for the seizure of housing and the establishment of new public housing to accommodate this relocated work force.
It seems these orders were not sufficient. In "Bush Moves Toward Martial Law", Frank Morales informed:
On October 17, 2006, President Bush signed (H.R.5122) which allows the President to declare a "public emergency" and station troops anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to "suppress public disorder."
President Bush seized this unprecedented power on the very same day that he signed the equally odious Military Commissions Act of 2006. In a sense, the two laws complement one another. One allows for torture and detention abroad, while the other seeks to enforce acquiescence at home, preparing to order the military onto the streets of America. Remember, the term for putting an area under military law enforcement control is precise; the term is "martial law."
Lastly, on May 9, 2007, Bush issued National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive NSPD 51/HSPD 20. An article in Global Research summarized:
The directive establishes procedures for "Continuity of Government" (COG) in the case of a "Catastrophic Emergency". The latter is defined in NSPD 51/HSPD 20 (henceforth referred to as NSPD 51), as "any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions."
"Continuity of Government," or "COG," is defined in NSPD 51 as "a coordinated effort within the Federal Government's executive branch to ensure that National Essential Functions continue to be performed during a Catastrophic Emergency."
NSPD 51 has barely been reported by the mainstream media. There was no press briefing by the White House or by DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff, which would be the normal practice, given the significance and implications of NSPD 51. The text of NSPD /51 HSPD 20, announced by the White House is not even mentioned on the DHS's website.
This Combined Directive NSPD /51 HSPD 20 grants unprecedented powers to the Presidency and the Department of Homeland Security, overriding the foundations of Constitutional government. NSPD 51 allows the sitting president to declare a "national emergency" without Congressional approval. The adoption of NSPD 51 would lead to the de facto closing down of the Legislature and the militarization of justice and law enforcement.
To be fair, at least one mainstream outlet did report on the directive. The Washington Post article "Bush Changes Continuity Plan; Administration, Not DHS, Would Run Shadow Government," reported in an interesting manner:
President Bush issued a formal national security directive yesterday ordering agencies to prepare contingency plans for a surprise, "decapitating" attack on the federal government, and assigned responsibility for coordinating such plans to the White House.
The prospect of a nuclear bomb being detonated in Washington without warning, whether smuggled in by terrorists or a foreign government, has been cited by many security analysts as a rising concern since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
This takes us into the second part of the article at hand and into more deeply conspiratorial speculation.
Location of the Detonations
Decapitate the national capital and you have an excuse for a national state of emergency and martial law right there. Ever since Oliver North was running amuck at the National Security Council and well before, insiders have been obsessed with "continuity of government," building a secret network of underground bunkers and tunnels throughout the nation. Dick Cheney and others retreated to one of them on 9/11. If Washington is "taken out," they will have to be semi-permanent headquarters. As far as collateral damage (people), the important ones could be forewarned like on 9/11 when San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown and top Pentagon brass were warned not to fly. Otherwise, it is mainly African-Americans who actually live in DC and they are deemed of little value to the "controllers."
In time, the national capital would be moved. Rumors have circulated for years that a new national capital has already been prepared: Denver, Colorado. Some researchers have alleged that the new Denver airport, which resembles a giant swastika from the air, is a nexus point between various secret underground bases. Its grotesque murals and "New World Airport Commission" capstone certainly are intriguing. Expect the Denver airport to be of major importance in the near future.
The alleged Al Qaida "American Hiroshima" scenario involved detonations in 7 to 10 American cities. Would they be simultaneous or consecutive? If we look back to the 9/11 script, it ran almost like a movie with significant action every 15 minutes or so, between airplane impacts, building demolitions, etc, to the point that fear was ratcheted up to a crescendo. The planners of terror plan very carefully and consecutive strikes are much more powerful than simultaneous ones. Several of the gamers have mentioned how after a strike on one city, people will flee American cities in fear. Hence we could expect a detonation in one city, then a span of time, then a detonation in another, until the nation is completely basked in panic and people are pleading for police state protection. (They will certainly get it.)
A second question arises, which cities might be targeted? Dr. William Deagle claims that according to his NSA sources, for some time now, 22 cities have been pre-wired with nukes. Deagle says he knows which ones they are. We can only speculate.
A pattern to watch out for is the "double or nothing" city name, which amplifies the event. In 1995, the inside job terrorist act was in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Six years later, in 2001, it was in New York City, New York. Now six years later, we are due again. How about Texas City, Texas, a major refinery port just outside of Houston, or Indianapolis, Indiana, home of the Indy 500? Think of all the NASCAR fans who would sign up to join the military so they could go off and slaughter Muslims. (Careful, though. Wake up and smell the coffee and you'll end up like Pat Tillman with a couple bullets in the head.)
The RAND report picked a port city, Long Beach, which could cause major economic disruption, so that's something to look out for. Port cities also tend to be heavily blue areas politically. Sadly, to speculate in such a manner, you have to start thinking like Dick Cheney. What would Dick do?
Since former attacks were on the east coast and in the heartland, it is high time to bring terror to the west. Hence, combining both of these factors, "attractive" targets might be Seattle, Portland (where the government has been trying to stage nuclear terror drills), or Oakland, the district of Barbara Lee, the only person in the entire Congress who voted against the resolution to attack Afghanistan in the wake of 9/11 (this century's Gulf of Tonkin resolution.) LA has to be one of the top potential targets because of the massive population (and results could be compared to the RAND report.) San Diego would probably be spared because it is major military port, but then again, on 9/11 the Pentagon was hit. A California city just has to be on the top of the list; the "Governator" Arnold Schwarzenegger is just waiting to show his true fascist colors in the coming emergency.
Cities or areas of cities (inner) with large non-white populations could be potential targets. Chicago, Detroit, a southern city? New Orleans was already "cleansed" exactly one year ago. Boston should be pretty safe. Although liberal, it is old school liberal, full of useful tools like Skull and Bones member John Kerry who made not a peep about the massive electoral fraud in 2004. You can be pretty sure that neither Denver nor anywhere in Wyoming would be targeted!
On 9/11 the outdated, asbestos- ridden Twin Towers were detonated so Larry Silverstein could cash in. After the next attack, there will be little visiting of casinos. So maybe take out a bunch of them in Los Vegas and let the mafia bosses get in on the insurance pay-outs?
Talk has always been of attacks in the contiguous US, so that exempts Alaska and Hawaii. This nuclear attack has been made in the US, by the US, and for the US. It is unlikely the detonations will be in any other countries, although don't rule out a Canadian city, just to bring our northern neighbors into line.
Date of Annihilation
When would such an attack occur? Such momentous events planned are months and even years in advance. In his documentary From Freedom to Fascism, Aaron Russo related how Nicholas Rockefeller had told him 11 months before 9/11 that an upcoming hoaxed event would lead the US to declare a "war on terror" with no real enemy. The US would invade Afghanistan (in order to run pipeline to the Caspian Sea) and Iraq (to seize its oil). In an interview with Alex Jones, Russo stated, "9/11 was done by people in our own government and our own banking system to perpetuate the fear of the American people into subordinating themselves into doing anything the government wants them to do." (A true patriot and freedom fighter, Russo passed away on August 24.)
Other researchers such as David Icke and Laura Knight-Jadczyk have gathered voluminous evidence that a small group of people at the very top of society orchestrate tragedies in order to further their own profit and control. This group of individuals is called by various names, but quite often the term "Illuminati" is used. Research also shows that the hidden controllers are masters of ritual and symbolism. Dates are chosen carefully. 9/11, for example was clearly a reference to the emergency telephone code in the United States, so the terror would be amplified and enhanced.
In a masterful study called Revelation 9:11, researcher Eric Rainbolt decoded the ritual numbers which are used within the dates of negative events, (i.e. 3,6,7,9,11,13,19, and multiples thereof.) For example, he listed several times regarding earlier this century when 9/11 may have been used for important events:
9/11/1941 groundbreaking ceremony for the Pentagon (modeled after Satanic five-pointed star)
9/11/1972 11 Israeli athletes killed at Munich Olympics (introducing the world to terrorism).
9/11/1973 Chilean President Salvador Allende killed in military coup (masterminded by Henry Kissinger).
11/9/1989 Berlin Wall opened.
9/11/1990 George Bush mentions "New World Order" in speech to joint session of Congress (exactly 11 years before 9/11/2001)
Rainbolt also came up with these events since 9/11 that fit the numerological thesis:
10/12/2002 (add 1/1/1 to each part of the date of 9/11/2001): bombing in Bali
3/13/2003 (3/4/5) first alert over SARS in Hong Kong
3/19/2003 (3rd weekday of the 3rd week of the 3rd month of the 3rd year of the new millennium) Bush begins Iraq war. (BTW 3/19/1994 was date Masonic capstone was laid at Denver airport.)
3/11/2004 (911 days after 9/11/01) Madrid train bombings.
6/5/2004 (999 days after 9/11/01) Ronald Wilson Reagan (666) passes away. The next day, Sunday 6/6/2004 (6/6/6), Bush declares the coming Friday, 6/11/2004 (93 days before 9/11/2004) to be a national day of mourning. 6/13/2004, Reagan buried.
11/11/2004 Yasser Arafat dies suspicious death.
4/19/2005 Joseph Ratzinger elected Pope Benedict XVI (4/19 has been important date throughout recent history; 1776 start of American Revolutionary War, 1933 US leaves gold standard, 1943 Nazi troops enter Warsaw Ghetto, 1993 WACO massacre, 1995 OKC bombing, 1999 German parliament returns to Berlin.)
7/7/2005 (7/7/7) at 11 minutes to 9 am London Bus bombings
From this date, fast forward two years to 7/7/07, when an anonymous person blogged the following (regrets that the exact blog cannot be recalled):
9 / 9 / 9 --> 9 / 9 / 2+0+0+7 --> 9/9/2007 --> September 9th, 2007
999 = 666 Upside Down
999 = Emergency Number In U.K.
911 = Emergency Number in U.S.
This little entry jumped off the computer screen. Could this be the date that a nuke will be detonated, triggering a nuclear strike on Iran and martial law in the US? 9/9/9 certainly is a powerful date, one that appeals to Illuminati who are orchestrating international terror. (Could it signal England as a second country to be targeted?) Coming two days before 9/11 it would be directly related to 9/11 in the public's mind, and the public's mind is the true target. It also falls on a Sunday, so the "Islamic" attack would be seen as a special affront to our "Christian" nation, giving the "Cheneyacs" a fair amount of support for vengeful nuclear strikes. On 9/11, we saw the number 11 used in spades, so if 9/9 is used as an attack date, we can expect to see the number 9 in spades. 9/9 is the 252nd day (adds to 9) of the year 2007 (adds to 9). What else? Nine cities? 9th st? 9:09 am?
Follow the Money... and the Military
As Micheal Ruppert wisely observed in tracking the perpetrators of 9/11, it helps to follow the money. He was the first to report how the CIA-connected Deutche Bank bought a highly unusual amount of put options on United Airlines and American Airlines stock prior to 9/11. We should look for similar patterns now. In fact, as this article was getting ready for "press," possible confirmation of this came in! First, it was reported that an anonymous investor had placed a bet on an index of Europe's top 50 stocks falling by a third by the end of September. The stock market has already started correcting from a high of 14,000 and the Federal Reserve had to pump $120 billion in separate cash injections to hold things up. (Where do they get all this money? They just print it or simply add electronic blips!)
Second, a report appeared of a $4.5 billion options bet on catastrophe within weeks:
The two sales are being referred to by market traders as "bin Laden trades" because only an event on the scale of 9-11 could make these short-sell options valuable.
There are 65,000 contracts @ $750.00 for the SPX 700 calls for open interest. That controls 6.5 million shares at $750 = $4.5 Billion. Not a single trade. But quite a bit of $$ on a contract that is 700 points away from current value. No one would buy that deep "in the money" calls. No reason to. So if they were sold looks like someone betting on massive dislocation. Lots of very strange option activity that I haven't seen before.
The entity or individual offering these sales can only make money if the market drops 30%-50% within the next four weeks. If the market does not drop, the entity or individual involved stands to lose over $1 billion just for engaging in these contracts!
Clearly, someone knows something big is going to happen BEFORE the options expire on Sept. 21.
In addition to following the money, Michael Ruppert advised us to follow the military. He showed that the US military had built up forces in the mid-east in preparation for an invasion of Afghanistan before 9/11. Hence , they knew it was coming and were already prepared. While we have already discussed in fair detail the military buildup in preparation for an attack on Iran, here is one other little piece that just came in:
Florida Troops Deploy to Nation's Capital
Members of the 1st Battalion 265 Air Defense Artillery have mobilized and are on a plane headed first to Ft. Bliss, then for federal active duty in the capital region. The troops will be deployed for a year. The 265th is part of Operation Noble Eagle. They are ordered by the president [sic] to the nation's capital, where they will operate high-tech weapons systems against [with] any potential air threat.
Federal active duty? An air threat in the nation's capital? What are they preparing for?
Whatever the date, many people "in the know" seem to be gearing up for a 10-15 kiloton nuclear detonation on a US city and everything is in place to use that as a trigger to attack Iran. This article has listed plenty of the "players" who seem to be in on the "game." Whenever it's played, once again, we, the people, will be the losers.
It will be a very low day, but not a surprise to 9/11 truth activists. In fact, even the American public may not be that surprised as they have been "acclimatized" over the past several years. For example, in the hit Fox TV series, 24, nuclear terrorism has been a consistent theme. More recently, the CBS series Jericho has chronicled life in a rural Kansas town in the aftermath of nuclear attacks on twenty-three major US cities. If the US does suffer a nuclear attack, this would be eerily reminiscent of how Hollywood's released "Pearl Harbor" in the summer of 2001, just previous to the "New Pearl Harbor" of 9/11.
So what can we do? Where does hope lie? First, it is important to note that things don't always go as planned. On 9/11, flight 93 was stuck on the tarmac in Newark for an extra 41 minutes before taking off. Sitting in the basement of the White House coordinating the various war games and monitoring the 9/11 planes, Dick Cheney was surely red with rage and his pacemaker must have been going haywire. There was also a huge gap between the first strike at 8:46 and the Pentagon hit at 9:38. Hence, it took the Pentagon no less than 3 cover stories in an effort explain why none of the 9/11 planes were intercepted. Such an obvious stand-down surely was not in the plans. So we can hope that in the next 9/11 type attack some force of providence will muck up the plans of the perpetrators and help provide clues as to their identity.
Along those lines, we can always look for media gaffes. One of the many that 9/11 researchers uncovered was how at least one network reported that Building 7 had collapsed when it was still standing behind the reporter. Dan Rather and Peter Jennings both stated that the WTC "collapse" looked like a demolition before they were hastily corrected.
Although former BYU Professor Steven Jones (who proved that thermite was used in the WTC demolitions) has advised that people collect samples, the nuclear dust may not have much of a signature. And who wants to collect radioactive dust? Physical evidence will probably not play as large a role as it did in 9/11 and the anthrax attacks (which were traced to military grade Ames strain produced at Fort Dietrich, Maryland.)
If a nuclear device is indeed detonated in the near future, the shock and horror will be unfathomable. And, with or without this "pre-text", an attack on Iran could lead to World War III. Our best bet is to be prepared physically, mentally and spiritually. Be healthy. Stock up on basic supplies. Pray that the negative effects are mitigated. Even on the darkest day, when a small group makes misery for millions, we must keep hope for a brighter future.
Chris Carlisle has no book, no website, no DVD, and hence, no fame or fortune. But he respects and appreciates those peace activists who have packaged their stand for truth. This is his first article.
Posted by 99researcher at 10:58 AM 0 comments
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom) Blog Archive
▼ 2007 (1)
▼ August (1)
Red September: An "American Hiroshima" as Pre-Text...
View my complete profile
contribute to this article
add comment to discussion