Murder From Four Miles High

The Untold Story of The Warmakers Attack On The People of Kosovo

Every United Nations “peace action” in the last decade has been cosmetically disguised genocide. Every American participation, from Korea to the Gulf, further cements the bonds of what President George H. W. Bush repeatedly referred to as “The New World Order.” The vehicle used to force world government upon us has varied from war to war in order to confuse us, but the results are always the same, death to the innocent, and rewards to those guilty and merciless leaders willing to sacrifice their own people for power and personal gain. Such leaders include former President George Bush, President William Jefferson Clinton and to a lesser degree former Communist Slobodan Milosevic.

This story is not about Milosevic or Bill Clinton, for they are they are only front men for a larger power whose design is world government. NATO is their latest mask. Milosevic probably does not even know he is playing a role in establishing global tyranny, and he is probably even less aware that he may well become the first national president to be convicted and sentenced by the World Court.

In Somalia, American troops rode into Mogadishu under the United Nations command of an Italian. But the equipment was American, and no doubt was left in the minds of the surviving Somalis that Americans were to blame for the cold-blooded, deliberate murder of women and children by U.S. Attack helicopters. In Bosnia, the Dayton accord was carried out under United Nations command, but the equipment, people and money were again strictly American. And now in Kosovo it is the NATO command, but it is again 80% American missiles, planes, people and money.

One of the most glaring and transparent deceits of the Warmaker press and the American government lies in the fact that Kosovo, like Somalia, Iraq and Sudan has an overwhelmingly Muslim population, a fact that is rarely mentioned by the normally race conscious press. An estimated 80% of its population is Islamic, a far greater percentage than in Bosnia, where the derogatory term “Muslim Fundamentalist” was used to imply that the Bosnians were secretly terrorists and deserved their fate. The Warmaker press has covered up the tragedy of religious persecution in Kosovo by labeling the Kosovars as “ethnic Albanians”, not Muslims, probably to prevent the readers from understanding that the “ethnic cleansing” of Kosovo is a mirror image of that in Bosnia, where the slaughter has been long since verified by the bones.

Note that while bombs fall on Belgrade, bombs are also falling in Pristina, the Kosovars’ capital, and God only knows where else in this sad and defenseless country. Under the guise of protecting “ethnic Abanians”, genocide is indiscriminately poured down upon Muslim Kosovars from the cowardly height of four miles. And sadly, it is American men who are dropping the bombs! Note that the fighter pilot who killed 72 Kosovars civilian refugees is no longer referred to as an “American” pilot, but a NATO pilot and NATO has taken full blame for the incident. How convenient! We taxpayers invade, provide the American planes, pilots, bombs and missiles, but when something goes wrong it is NATO’s fault. The NATO mask protects our leaders. But sadly, it does not protect American military men from becoming hired murderers of the defenseless.

With this understanding of war for the sake of war, fair-minded readers should be able to understand that, as in Bosnia, it is the Kosovars and noncombatant Serbs who will suffer and die, not only from the weapons of war, but from the more deadly aftermath. And the old communist allies, Clinton and Milosevic will prosper, just as Saddam Hussein has. For as recent history is repeated in mirror image, Milosevic continues to be the Warmakers point man for world government and agent of death in the Baltic, first to his neighbors, and then to his own people. He is a perfect ally for Bill Clinton (far from an enemy) because war is his game just as it is Clinton’s.

Sadly and shamefully, one group conspicuously missing from the protest against this carnage is the leading Celebrity Christians. Where are they now when international murder and genocide racks the innocent Muslims and Christians of the Baltic? Did they not cry out for protection from “Religious Persecutions” and the passage of the International Religious Freedom Act only last year? Where are their voices now, when an entire society of Muslims are “ethnically cleansed” in front of their eyes? Why don’t they object to bombs on the children of the Christian Serbian’s?

A review of the Websites of the most powerful Christian Celebrities reveal they are saying little or nothing about it What prejudices and ungodly foreign oaths prevent their outcry? It is past time to ask them! They too are Bill Clinton’s allies in war. They too enjoy friends in high places, and by their inaction and silence in the face of barbarism have become participants in the most devious and powerful warmaking scheme in the history of the world.

The following excerpt is from article that appeared in a national magazine by this author in March 1994. It is even truer today, which is why we are reproducing it. Only this introduction and the final paragraph have been added, no changes have been made to the viscera of the story. It is left intact and uncorrected to show the reader how little events change from one Warmaker engineered world crisis to another. We believe any careful reader can fully understand the present tragedy in Kosovo by reading this story written at a similar period in the destruction of the tragic state of Bosnia only a few air miles away. One has only to substitute “Kosovo” wherever “Bosnia” appears in the original text to understand the present contrived and incredibly evil disaster that is now engulfing the latest independence effort within what was once the Communist state of Yugoslavia.

(The following text is, except for some title lines, quoted directly from “Attacking Islam” by Charles E. Carlson, which appeared as a feature story in the New American Magazine, March 21, 1994.)


The Warmakers selected the far-flung nations of Islam as a replacement for the old Marxist-Leninist enemy long before the American people suspected the Cold War had “ended.” With shocking abruptness, the Red Peril has “greatly abated” (some say it has disappeared) to be replaced by a new Green Peril – green being the color of Islam. Meanwhile, the USSR is being remolded from the carefully tailored image of world super-enemy into the new role of international welfare urchin and “ally,” to be rebuilt by the American taxpayer.

Foremost among those groups that have been identified with the ongoing treachery and conspiracy in the highest levels of American government is the Council on Foreign Relations, or CFR. Friends and critics alike agree that the 3,000-member Council constitutes an elite “ruling class” with immense power in the federal government, the national media, academia, the major corporations, and the big tax-exempt foundations. The Council’s members and friends refer fondly to the CFR and the organized forces it represents as “the Establishment,” or “the Wise Men.”

An anti-Islamic hate campaign to poison the peoples of the world and especially the American public against Muslims has been underway for quite some time. Fabricating the Islamic demon has not been difficult for the Insider-controlled press. The CFR, as usual, has been leading the way with its flagship journal, Foreign Affairs, the publication Time magazine has called “the most influential periodical in print.” Once Foreign Affairs began to equate Muslims with terrorists the malleable international press quickly took the cue and began a campaign to paint resurgent fundamentalist Islam as the looming world enemy.

The CFR has been conditioning its new enemy as a picador taunts a fighting bull; no abuse or insult is too strong. The enemy, like the bull, has been selected for courage in the face of overwhelming odds. With 1.2 billion people blanketing the globe, a naturally militant faith, and no organized movement of pacifist clergy such as we have in the West, Muslims can be counted on to fight back when invaded, insulted, or threatened – as was proved in Afghanistan.


Examples of the vicious Islam-baiting media campaign are legion, but we have space here to present only a few of the more notorious and influential. Of these, the spring 1993 Foreign Affairs offers a particularly noteworthy case. The keynote “debate” of that issue of the journal is framed by the article, “Is Islam a Threat?” by CFR member Judith Miller, a New York Times writer and author of a new book entitled The Arabs and Islam. Ms. Miller’s article makes negative generalizations about all of Islam, associating the vast majority of peaceful law-abiding Muslims with the relatively small minority of those involved in outlaw activity. She depicts a warlike, united Islam, which she claims (without offering a shred of evidence) have executed a secret manifesto committing Islam to war against the West.

Anyone with even a superficial familiarity of the Islamic world realizes that Islam is about as unified as “Christendom.” Islamic theological and sectarian divisions – between Sunni, Shia, Sufi, Wahhabi, etc. – run nearly as deep and strong as those between Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, and Mormon. Added to this are equally divisive racial, tribal, national, regional, political, cultural, dynastic, linguistic, and historic factors that militates against any grand green coalition. But Miller simply assumes we have already been sufficiently conditioned to accept the idea that Islam equals radical “fundamentalism,” which equates to terrorism – on a global scale. Miller states, “Islam has its own version of a New World Order and a strategy to obtain it.”

Then Miller prepares us to fight back. She stirs the reader by vague references to atrocities against “Christians” in Sudan and the “lashing” of women in unnamed Arab states. Ms. Miller makes no attempt to prove her assertions, and her reference to Christians in mentioning the Sudanese tribesmen is curious, again playing up what may be tribal or political conflicts as a Muslim vs. Christian war. Ms. Miller concedes that Islam may not be militarily strong enough “to attack the U.S. openly or directly,” but she suggests that the Muslims can never be trusted because they are fanatically anti-American. Foreign Affairs made a flimsy effort to appear even-handed by publishing a counterpoint to Miller, “Islam Is No Threat,” by Leon Hadar of American University, in the same spring 1993 issue.

However, Hadar merely served as an intellectual punching bag for Miller, offering a less-than-convincing defense and never going on the offensive. A key kick-off piece in the Islam-as-world-enemy campaign, “Fundamentalist Muslims between America and Russia,” appeared in the summer 1986 issue of Foreign Affairs. The author was Daniel Pipes (CFR), director of the Foreign Policy Research Institute in Philadelphia. Unlike Miller, Pipes did at least distinguish between violent and peaceful Muslims; however, in similar fashion he applied the fundamentalist label liberally. Pipes, an
Establishment Insider, correctly predicted that the USSR would fall and he rationalized why Islam is likely to become an organized enemy of the U.S.

According to Pipes, “fundamentalist Islam” views the U.S. as a more threatening adversary than the USSR because “America presents the greater set of obstacles to life under the Islamic Law.” And, he says, “Little can be done to avert collisions between America and the fundamentalists.” It’s an inescapable kismet: The Warmakers have spoken.


Interestingly, Pipes showed considerable concern about the potential hostile actions of the 50 million Muslims within the USSR toward the centralized communist government, and he clearly indicated he was on the Soviet side. In his CFR-certified analysis, “radical fundamentalists are the real danger. As even more profound enemies of the United States than Marxists, their ascension to power almost always harms the United States and its allies.” He warned that “in the case of fundamentalist Muslims opposing governments allied with the Soviet Union, the U.S. is naturally tempted to provide aid to the fundamentalists.” Pipes cautioned that this would be a mistake, as it might “make them the only alternative to communists.” He called for “strict limitations to any aid to be given to fundamentalist Muslims,” even when they are trying to escape the old USSR system.

In other words, Pipes warned government officials and the Establishment Insider press that when Muslim states – like Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, or even Bosnia – revolt against the communist system, the U.S. must not help the state seeking independence because the Islamic state is less desirable to the U.S. than communism. Please remember that Pipes presented this thesis in 1986, five years before the USSR collapsed and independence-minded Muslim countries began to seek their freedom. Pipes also wrote a similar feature article in the October 30, 1992 Wall Street Journal with the inflammatory title, “Fundamental Questions About Muslims.” Imagine the outcry that would result from an article entitled, “Fundamental Questions about Jews (or American Indians, Blacks, Protestants, Catholics, etc.)”!

This theme of the danger of Islamic fundamentalism has echoed through many other CFR publications, such as, for instance, Sea Changes: American Foreign Policy in a World Transformed, a path-breaking 1990 collection of essays by the CFR’s one-world policy works. In the summation essay by Stanley Hoffman (a CFR director and professor of government at Harvard) entitled “A New World and Its Troubles,” we are reminded once again that “a post-Cold War world will be anything but harmonious.”

“First, there is a huge array of possible ‘traditional’ quarrels,” says Hoffman, “in a world where there is at least still one ideology of violent conflict – Islamic fundamentalism” (emphasis added). The same alarm is sounded in The Rise of Nations in the Soviet Union, an influential 1991 anthology produced by the CFR’s Project on East-West Relations and edited by the Project’s director, Michael Mandelbaum (CFR). In the book’s introduction, Mandelbaum reiterates the CFR line that recognizing sovereignty and independence of states breaking away from the Soviet empire would “contradict a widely honored postwar international principle: the sanctity of existing borders almost regardless of their origins.”

“Nationalist turmoil may, finally, give rise,” warns Mandelbaum, ” to one or more forms of political extremism in the Soviet Union, which could make the country as dangerous to its neighbors as it was during the long years of the Cold War.” RAND Soviet-ologist Jeremy R. Azrael, one of Mandelbaum’s co-authors, writes in the same volume, “Still another highly undesirable outcome from a U.S. point of view would be an upsurge of Islamic fundamentalism among the Soviet (or ex-Soviet) Muslims of Central Asia and Azerbaijan” (emphasis added). We are reminded of this again in “The Clash of Civilizations” by Professor Samuel P. Huntington (CFR) in the summer 1993 issue of Foreign Affairs. “After World War II,” says Huntington, ” first Arab nationalism and then Islamic fundamentalism manifested themselves” (emphasis added). A little further on he warns us that “Islam has bloody borders.”


What appears in Foreign Affairs soon makes its way into news stories, editorials, and commentaries in the major print and electronic media. One of many factually absurd examples of this CFR-led, fundamentalist-bashing ripple effect is found in “Fundamentalism, the Zeal to Heal, or to Kill,” an inflammatory story by Sharon Cohen of the Associated Press that appeared
on May 15, 1993. This bizarre story is only one of hundreds that are inundating the public with vitriol aimed at religious activists of all kinds. Muslims are the author’s primary targets, but Ms. Cohen conveniently lumps all “fundamentalists” into a sort of global super-cult threat. She cautions darkly against the threat of “fundamentalism, one of the fastest growing religious movements.” In this “movement” she links “radical religious Zionists,” “the Islamic Group in Egypt,” the pro-life group “Operation Rescue,” and Muslims of various stripes in an ideologically semi-homogeneous, terrorist-inclined aggregation.

Similar media attacks on “fundamentalists” – Muslim and otherwise – are too numerous and too uniformly skewed to be accidents. They appear to be orchestrated for the purpose of initiating and perpetuating seemingly unrelated world conflicts by: 1) creation of a perceived ideological enemy in the minds of the American people; 2) provocation of incidents that cause hatred on both sides; and 3) creation of a vehicle to keep the war going regardless of public opinion – a fighting machine outside the control of Congress and the voters.

Through the Establishment opinion cartel (CBS, ABC, NBC, PBS, CNN, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, Newsweek, Time, etc.) the War-makers have already largely -succeeded in creating the ideological enemy. An attitude of deep distrust between Muslims and Americans is being created; and Christians and nominal Christians are being conditioned to fear and loathe adherents of Islam. The incidents needed to trigger new conflicts can easily be provoked (and are being provoked) by blowing small events out of proportion, by completely fabricating non-events into incidents, and by actually creating situations sufficiently grave or so morally offensive as to demand international intervention.

The Warmakers already possess their rudimentary fighting machine in the United Nations, created 50 years ago and now being built into a world army (together with such subsidiaries as NATO, OAU, OAS, CSCE, WEU, etc.) ostensibly to carry out “peacekeeping,” “police actions,” and other noble dictates of the UN.


The Gulf War marked the first time America initiated an unprovoked attack on a foreign power in another hemisphere. This war was to be a test of public response to the televised horror of mass annihilation. The resultant death and devastation were sanitized, but not hidden from the American public. The horrors of the war were visible to anyone who really cared to know, and a number of well-written books now detail the horror of the Gulf War aftermath. America’s moral leaders in the churches failed the test; few questioned the politically acceptable bloodletting. Step one in the Warmakers’ plan was in place and tested. An enemy had been created from thin wisps of smoke.

The Warmakers forged quickly ahead. UN troops were reported present in Bosnia in 1991, before Bosnian Muslims even declared independence. The United Nations first promised protection if Bosnia’s leaders committed to independence; but afterwards the UN switched sides and employed a deadly embargo and a patient stalling strategy to allow systematic genocide of the Muslim population (about 44 percent of the Bosnian population) as well as of many non-Muslims. News photos show the UN “peacekeepers” standing Impotently aside under order to stay uninvolved. Mehmed Kozlica, the Phoenix director of the Bosnian Relief Fund, has stated that the UN is effectively preventing anything of value from getting through to the trapped and besieged Bosnians, rendering them helpless while under deadly siege. Adding insult to injury, the U.S. peace plan would intern the Muslim survivors in concentration camps under the guise of protection – a sure-fire formula for perpetual hatred and conflict, as we have seen so well in the similar situation of the Palestinians.

Five senior State Department officials from both the Bush and Clinton Administrations have resigned in protest over the continuing callous U.S. policy, which has amounted to complicity in genocide. The most senior and most recent resignee is Warren Zimmerman, who served as Ambassador to Yugoslavia. The others are George Kenney, Mar-shall Freeman Harris, Steven Walker, and John Western. The slaughter has been too much for even these seasoned, Insider-appointed Foreign Service officers to take. In Somalia, the UN “humanitarian mission” quickly turned into an invasion the stated purpose of which was to remove General Mohammed Aidid, a Muslim leader. Whatever his image in the West, General Aidid is apparently popular with many of the Somali people, as evidenced by the fact that the UN was unable to apprehend him even with the promise of huge bribes (to be paid with U.S. taxpayers’ money) to dirt-poor Somalis.

The UN occupying forces have repeatedly killed and tortured Somali civilians who challenge their authority. And the Somalis have little reason not to hold the U.S. accountable for these atrocities. The Warmaker-dominated press and their dupes are prophetically warning the world to prepare for retribution, while Muslims are deliberately being conditioned to think Americans are racial bigots, bloody international bully boys, and suppressors of those seeking independence from socialistic governments. Since the U.S. taxpayer supplies more than 30 percent of the United Nations operating budget and about 50 percent of the UN’s war budget, many in the Islamic world hold American citizens responsible for these diabolical “peace” operations that have already resulted in an estimated 400,000 deaths in Iraq, Bosnia, and Somalia alone.
It should be clear that the Insider-Warmaker’s program to instigate perpetual conflicts with Muslim countries is being planned and carried out through the United Nations hydra, with the support of such U.S. agencies as the CIA. The United Nations “peacekeeping” forces are in various stages of occupying at least ten Muslim countries. The UN has a stated plan to occupy 19 additional “trouble spots,” many of which are Muslim.

In late 1992, the U.S. government published a very revealing world map and report, entitled Worldwide Peacekeeping Operations 1993, by the Directorate of Intelligence of the Central Intelligence Agency. The countries listed by the CIA as sites of current or proposed UN peacekeeping operations are: Cyprus, Croatia, El Salvador, Angola, Somalia, Sudan, Liberia, Eritrea (Ethiopia), South Ossetia (Georgia), Nagorno-Karabakh, Abkahazia, Sinai, Rwanda, Cambodia, Jerusalem, Western Sahara, Mozambique, Lebanon, The Republic of South Africa, Bosnia-Hercegovina, Haiti, Moldova, Tajikistan, the Golan Heights, Kashmir, Kuwait, Sri Lanka, the Solomon Islands, and Liberia. When the CIA map was made, Bosnia, Kashmir, and Moldova were all listed as “proposed operations,” but we now know the UN was already in Bosnia at that time.

Note that “peacekeeping” (warmaking) operations are proposed wherever Muslim-led independence movements are challenging former Soviet-Warsaw Pact communist leaders, as in Bosnia, Moldova, Abkahazia, Georgia, and Tajikistan. As CFR operative Pipes predicted in 1986, these former USSR states are now seeking independence and the UN is there to assure their failure. Interestingly, the world peacekeeping map neatly overlays the CFR map depicting the population distribution in the Muslim-controlled countries around the world, published with Mr. Pipes’ Foreign Affairs article. The CFR and CIA are both talking about occupying the same Muslim-controlled real estate, but both maps omit mention of the American Muslim population, variously estimated at three to six million, most of whom are productive, patriotic, and hardworking citizens. Perhaps the War-makers do not want Americans to think about the millions of potential victims here at home.

The death toll in Bosnia and Iraq already runs into the hundreds of thousands each, with a significant death count of women and children now mounting in Somalia. However, Americans are not supposed to be unduly concerned because these are “peacekeeping” operations, and, besides, the lives being lost are primarily troublesome “radical fundamentalists.”
Meanwhile, Muslims are also being programmed to despise the Americans for our government’s war acts against civilians.


If these UN atrocities are allowed to continue, the Islamic Peril will become a self-fulfilling prophecy, as various Muslim groups and countries seek revenge on those they deem responsible. The Warmakers are not content to wait for this to happen on its own, however. As the article beginning on page 15 reveals, the same CFR Insiders who are decrying the fundamentalist danger have been in the forefront of a massive effort to build the most dangerous “Islamic fundamentalist” terrorist regimes and groups into genuine global menaces.

If terrorism fails to materialize, the Warmakers may even encourage, pay for, or stage incidents, as some evidence already suggests may be the case with regard to the World Trade Center explosion and the alleged plot to kill former President George Bush in Kuwait. Peculiar about the Bush mission to Kuwait is that the former President was visiting the El Sabah family, who paid bribes to three Americans, including a former Ambassador, to gain influence with the same George Bush to enter the war on the side of Kuwait.

In other words, War-maker Bush was in Kuwait on a taxpayer-financed visit to a head of state who is accused of bribing Mr. Bush’s former employees. This alleged assassination attempt was used as yet another excuse to drop 23 American missiles on Baghdad, killing eight civilians and an unknown number of military personnel. Besides possibly serving to destroy more evidence of Saddam’s war machine that had been illegally provided to the dictator by the Insiders, another result of the raid certainly was to incite more hatred toward America among Muslims, which is exactly the War-makers’ intent.

If allowed to succeed, the unholy UN wars (both those now underway and those still to come) ultimately will be brought home to our own shores, resulting in the abrogation of our sovereignty by international treaty enforced by the UN mercenary army. Temporary suspension of constitutional guarantees is likely, including gun confiscation, ostensibly to control the three to six million “Muslim Fundamentalists” residing in the U.S. The ultimate aim of the War-makers can only be to force UN troops onto U.S. soil on some peacekeeping pretext – including the pretext of Muslim terrorism here or the pursuit of international terrorists in our midst.

What elected or appointed official will resist an international treaty enforced by the United Nations? Celebrity Christians have, almost to a man, unconditionally supported every Warmaker action. If and when fundamentalist Christians, Jews, or anyone else finally stand up for the rights of their Muslim neighbor they too may become a persecuted class, as German Christians were persecuted by the Nazis for acting out their faith in defense of Jews. (Unquote, Attacking Islam)

The United Nations and NATO are clearly inert tools, masks to be pulled on and off whenever convenient. Exposure of the Warmakers’ plan for world dominion is the only way to avert this world tragedy. Slobodan Milosevic and Bill Clinton are not adversaries as we are led to believe. They are in effect each other