Henry pops up again

Early in the year 2000, we took our Middle East trip once
again through Israel, Egypt and Jordan.

Whilst crossing the Sinai, we stayed at a hostel close to the
mountain, thus giving our tour party opportunity to climb it early in the
morning, so they could observe the sunrise from the very top.

That night I remember going to bed quite tired and picked up
a book which had been given to me, entitled, The Trial of Henry Kissinger,
written by a man who had done a great deal of background study.

From time to time this name crops up in connection with
various events which are taking place worldwide, and we have in front of us on
the table here now, some pieces of information as to the latest on this man and
his very unusual lifestyle. An article taken from the New Straits Times,
December 8, 2001, we read the headline: "Invasion of East Timor -– Ford and
Kissinger gave Suharto the green light -– US President Gerald Ford and
Secretary of State Henry Kissinger gave late Indonesian strongman Suharto the
green light for the 1975 invasion of East Timor that left perhaps 200,000 dead,
according to previously secret documents made available yesterday.

Kissinger has maintained that he only learned of the plan at
the airport as he and Ford prepared to fly home after meeting Suharto in Jakarta
on the eve of Dec 7 thrust into East Timor....

The private National Security Archive, a Washington-based
research group that obtained the document under the Freedom of Information Act,
said it showed that Kissinger's concern was not that US weapons would be used
offensively -– hence illegally -– but about how he might manipulate public
opinion.

'It is important that whatever you do succeeds quickly,'
Kissinger told Suharto.... 'We would be able to influence the reaction in
America if whatever happens, happens after we return.'

'We understand your problem and the need to move quickly
but I am only saying that it would be better if it were done after we returned
to Washington,' Kissinger said, according to the document....

In an interview with WNYC Radio in New York on March 19,
1999, Kissinger denied having held substantive talks with Suharto on the plan,
saying: 'We were told at the airport as we left Jakarta that either that day
or the next day they intended to take East Timor.'

He added, 'And it happened in a year when Southeast Asia,
Indochina had collapsed. So it wasn't a question of approval but of not being
able to do anything about it.'"

What we have just read verifies a statement made in the book
also, The Trial of Henry Kissinger. Then again, we see that he is seeking
to be involved in world peace once more. An article taken from The Daily Star,
in Ireland, in December 2001, reads: "Henry Kissinger re-enters the game at
the expense of world peace -– Former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger
is at it again. In a recent article entitled 'Where do we go from here,'
published in The Washington Post last Monday, he was, once again, advocating the
partitioning of yet another state even if his call is couched in
characteristically diplomatic terms.

President George W. Bush declared: 'We are not into
nation-building.' A few weeks later, he espoused it.

Kissinger, on the other hand, finds in the ongoing crisis
another opportunity to reintroduce his trite formula for nation-shattering.
Substituting the euphemism of 'tribal autonomy' for partitioning, he
writes that 'the likely perhaps optimum outcome (of the military operations in
Afghanistan) is a central Kabul government of limited reach, with tribal
autonomy prevailing in the various regions.'...

Kissinger's prescription for Afghanistan's future is a
modern-day version of the 'divide and rule' principle..." (emphases
added).

And now onto the Middle East, where Henry Kissinger,
according to many of his detractors, is often termed as the master of duplicity.
We quote: "Here again, he uses his diplomatic experience to appear to be
saying one thing when he is actually calling for the contrary. 'The Middle
East process should be urgently resumed' he writes. But he warns that it
should only happen 'after measurable success in the anti-terrorism campaign,
when it does not appear as concession to the terrorists.'

Between Bush's warning that the anti-terror campaign could
take 'many years' and Kissinger's advice that progress on the Middle East
peace process should resume only after considerable progress would have been
achieved in the campaign, should Arabs simply grin and bear it in the interim?
Should Bush abandon his country's commitment to peace in the Middle East for
'many years' while tens of innocent civilians from both sides die each day
simply to avoid appearing to make 'a concession to terrorists?' Would
even Kissinger have the heart to say that to Arab and Israeli mothers of dead
civilians whose sons and daughters paid the price of international complacency?

If the US administration follows his advice, it would play
right into the terrorists' hands. The latter would like nothing more in this
regard than for the US to stay out of the peace process, for the bloodletting to
continue, and for Arab and Muslim anti-American sentiments to grow...."
(emphases added).

This man Henry Kissinger seems to have a finger in every pie,
for now we read some more of his ideas in the Courier Mail, Brisbane,
December 1, 2001, "Old ways unable to manage new problems -– September 11,
2001, is etched in American minds as a vast tragedy, but it is likely that
history may record it also as the turning point in shaping the international
order for the 21^st century.

September 11 ended some of the smug illusions of the 1990s,
among them that international politics has been supplanted by global economics
or by the Internet.

The idea that a uniting Europe should seek its
identity in distinction from the US has been overtaken by European offers to
join the American diplomatic and military campaign against terrorism. Russia
also has become a partner. China has provided intelligence. Relations with India
have grown closer despite America's reliance on Pakistani bases in the war
against Afghanistan. The US has made quiet overtures toward Iran....

Europe has recognised its vulnerability. President Vladimir
Putin perceived (even before September 11) that to play a major international
role, Russia needed to replace confrontation with co-operation with the US...."
(emphases added).

There is no doubt at all, that this man, whose name adds up
to 666, is a non-religious Jew who was interested in setting up a global
government.

We simply ask you to watch with us, and time will tell
whether or not he plays a prominent role in this New World Order.

In the book of Revelation 13:18, we find that the future
world leader's name must add up to 666:

"Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the
number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six
hundred threescore and six."