Tuesday, November 24, 2015

It never stops. IT NEVER STOPS.

From here. A follow up comment:
One of my clients claimed that Russia was financing and providing arms to ISIS.....
The host of "Here and Now" is Robin Young, who brags of "25 years of broadcasting experience." Translation: When a neocon says "Blow me," she drops down so fast that her knees punch two evenly-spaced holes in the concrete. (I'll apologize for that last remark when Young apologizes for that insane statement about Putin and Assad.) For more about NPR, go here.


Neocons worship ISIS

For more proof that the neocons love ISIS long time, check out what John Bolton has to say in the NYT...
If, in this context, defeating the Islamic State means restoring to power Mr. Assad in Syria and Iran’s puppets in Iraq, that outcome is neither feasible nor desirable.
Of course that outcome is feasible. If it is feasible for the Gulf States to be run by brutal Sunni dictators, why isn't it feasible for Syria to be run by a secular leader who has always respected the rights of Christians and other minorities? A leader who has never done anything to harm American interests? Bolton considers this outcome undesirable only because the increasingly fascistic leaders of Israel long ago pegged Assad for removal.

And please note: If defeating ISIS means that Assad stays, then Bolton would rather not defeat ISIS. He says this.

Bolton's big idea: Carve a Sunni state out of Syria and Iraq. In other words, he wants to codify the Islamic State -- to change its status from de facto state to de jure. This guy thinks that the way to defeat ISIS is to give 'em exactly what they want.

Before America blundered into Iraq, Sunnis and Shi'ites lived in peace in that country. There was intermarriage and fellowship. The neocons deliberately created religious tensions, and now they are asking for national segregation along theocratic lines.

Bolton's next idea is a corker:
The Arab monarchies like Saudi Arabia must not only fund much of the new state’s early needs, but also ensure its stability and resistance to radical forces.
Saudi Arabia is a radical force. Saudi Arabia is the Islamic State. Continuing with Bolton:
This Sunni state proposal differs sharply from the vision of the Russian-Iranian axis and its proxies (Hezbollah, Mr. Assad and Tehran-backed Baghdad). Their aim of restoring Iraqi and Syrian governments to their former borders is a goal fundamentally contrary to American, Israeli and friendly Arab state interests.
Bolton here comes close to admitting the truth: America, Israel and the Gulf states instigated this civil war -- a war that has created misery for millions.
Notions, therefore, of an American-Russian coalition against the Islamic State are as undesirable as they are glib.
There's that word again: "undesirable." The use of the passive voice allows Bolton to avoid stating who is doing the desiring.

We average Americans sure as hell did not desire this war. Most Americans do not have ludicrous dreams of empire. Bolton does not speak for us; he speaks only for a small clique of conspirators.

The Syrian civil war was instigated by the Machiavellian monsters who call themselves neoconservatives. The same monsters brought us the Iraq debacle (which Bolton still defends). The same monsters brought Nazis to power in Ukraine. The same monsters funded ISIS. The same monsters formulated the Plan for a New American Century. The same monsters wrote the truly diabolical "Clean Break" document, which talked about the need for waging a proxy war against Syria.

The best argument for an American-Russian coalition is the fact that beasts like Bolton hate the very idea.

John Bolton is as undesirable as he is criminal. In a sane world, he and his fellow war-lovers would have faced justice at a Nuremberg-style trial.

By the way: Bolton is Donald Trump's chief foreign policy adviser. Trump may talk the anti-neocon talk to win over the libertarian-minded -- but if he is elected, don't expect improvement.
The neocons are infesting our media....

Following the downing of the Russian fighter aircraft in Turkey CNBC provided this commentary:

"Defense consultant Paul Beaver told CNBC that the downing of the jet was an incident that had been 'waiting to happen. The Russians are very cavalier in the way they operate their aircraft,' he told CNBC Tuesday. 'Traditionally, they've always been less than scrupulous in terms of air traffic management. Given that, I feel that this incident was inevitable.'

Which is a lie because the Russians and the US have implemented protocols specifically to avoid needless air conflict incidents.

In 2003, Paul Beaver was appointed a Specialist Adviser to the UK House of Commons Defence Committee. He is also a signatory of the Statement of Principles of the British neoconservative think tank the Henry Jackson Society.

More here.

UK academics Tom Griffin, Hilary Aked, David Miller, Sarah Marusek have written a detailed study on the development of the Henry Jackson Society, its history, membership and financing:

"Although the HJS continues to claim to be a bipartisan think tank as it still retains some limited support from interventionist liberals in parliament, our report illustrates that the activities of the society are distinctly neoconservative:

• Promoting a strongly pro-Israel agenda;
• Organising anti-Islam activities, focusing particularly on British Muslim students;
• Advocating a transatlantic military and security regime."

Robert Kagan is a patron of the UK's Henry Jackson Society.

John Bolton is the chair of the Gatestone Institute, a New York based offshoot of the Hudson Institute, and all the usual faces are there in spades:

"The institute was founded in 2011 by Nina Rosenwald, an heiress of the Sears Roebuck empire who has been a key philanthropic backer of anti-Muslim groups and individuals in the United States.

Rosenwald is reportedly also a financial donor to the Henry Jackson Society.
Nice post, Joe. Something tells me small-j joseph isn't going to like this too much, however. He'd rather muddy the issue by claiming racism than admit to the diabolical machinations so inherent to the neocon ilk.
This makes it appear [see link], that Obama is all in with the ISIS/Al-Qaeda/Turkey/Saudi/Qatar et al gang. It's where the money is and Obama just has to keep the big players happy for a few more months and Clinton's $150-200,000,000.00 after presidency payola will look like a church mouse's crumbs.

But I don't know, the bomb planted on a Russian civilian airliner by US proxies didn't make Putin lose his cool, but it looks like this provocation did. I'm sure today's version of General Bat Guano is assuring Obama that the Russians won't escalate...and if they do, the US can "handle it", but that's the thinking that started WW I, which bequeathed us WW II.

If the Peace Prize Prez does miscalculate and winds up starting WW III, will his fanboy stop clapping...or use the NSA's Staci powers to insure we all clap louder? God help this country of mine...we're ruled reasonably sounding Sociopaths[D] and tourettes symptom Sociopaths [R]...apparently, Sociopaths[D]seem to be, if not more evil, the more effective evil of the two.


Post a Comment

<< Home

Monday, November 23, 2015

Why does Hillary's chief adviser want ISIS to succeed?

All of the war drumming and fear porn on your TV screens right now can't hide the truth. America will not defeat ISIS unless and until it does two things:

1. Work with Putin.

2. Give up the sick dream of toppling Bashar Assad.

That very point is made by Democratic congressperson Tulsi Gabbar (of Hawaii) who is interviewed by Wolf Blitzer in the interview embedded above. It's a pretty good interview: Wolf doesn't lay on the stupidity too thickly until the end, when he tries to give the impression that Assad is a bloodthirsty demon who killed hundreds of thousands of civilians simply to prove how evil he is. No, Wolf: The only people Assad's forces have been killing are fighters for ISIS and Al Qaeda -- and he damned well ought to kill those people.

On the right (VERY right) side of the aisle, we have state senator Richard Black of Virginia. Normally, I would have nothing good to say about such an extreme reactionary, but his letter to Bashar Assad is extraordinary.
I was pleased by the Russians’ intervention against the armies invading Syria. With their support, the Syrian Army has made dramatic strides against the terrorists...
It was an unlawful war of aggression by foreign powers determined to force a puppet regime on Syria. General Wesley Clark, former Supreme Allied Commander Europe, revealed that by 2001, Western powers had developed plans to overthrow Syria. Yet after fifteen years, of military subversion, NATO, Saudi Arabia and Qatar still cannot identify a single leader who enjoys popular support among the Syrian people.

Foreign powers have no right to overturn legitimate elections and impose their will on the Syrian people. Syrians alone must determine their destiny, free of foreign intervention. I am disappointed that the UN has turned a blind eye to the unlawful interference in Syria’s internal affairs.
On the right and on the left, people are waking up.

Unfortunately, Robert Kagan -- a key neocon supporter of (and adviser to) Hillary Clinton -- wants you to go back to your worst nightmare. (Kagan, you will recall, is married to vile Victoria Nuland.)

Try not to vomit as you read:
The only alternative is to address the crisis in Syria and Iraq, and with it the terrorist threat posed by Islamic State. But just as in the 1990s, when Europeans could address the crisis in the Balkans only with the U.S. playing the dominant military role, so again America will have to take the lead, provide the troops, supply the bulk of the air power and pull together those willing and able to join the effort.

What would such an effort look like? First, it would require establishing a safe zone in Syria, providing the millions of would-be refugees still in the country a place to stay and the hundreds of thousands who have fled to Europe a place to which to return. To establish such a zone, American military officials estimate, would require not only U.S. air power but ground forces numbering up to 30,000. Once the safe zone was established, many of those troops could be replaced by forces from Europe, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and other Arab states, but the initial force would have to be largely American.

In addition, a further 10,000 to 20,000 U.S. troops would be required to uproot Islamic State from the haven it has created in Syria and to help local forces uproot it in Iraq. Many of those troops could then be replaced by NATO and other international forces to hold the territory and provide a safe zone for rebuilding the areas shattered by Islamic State rule.

At the same time, an internationally negotiated and blessed process of transition in Syria should take place, ushering the bloodstained Mr. Assad from power and establishing a new provisional government to hold nationwide elections. The heretofore immovable Mr. Assad would face an entirely new set of military facts on the ground, with the Syrian opposition now backed by U.S. forces and air power, the Syrian air force grounded and Russian bombing halted. Throughout the transition period, and probably beyond even the first rounds of elections, an international peacekeeping force—made up of French, Turkish, American and other NATO forces as well as Arab troops—would have to remain in Syria until a reasonable level of stability, security and inter-sectarian trust was achieved.
In other words, Kagan wants ISIS and Al Qaeda (the two are pretty much indistinguishable) to take power in Syria. When you cut past the double-talk, that's what the guy is really saying. Why else would Kagan want us to stop Russia and Syria from bombing the hell out of the jihadis?

"With the Syrian opposition now backed by U.S. forces and air power..." Do you understand what the man is really saying here? Let's make one point very, very clear:

ISIS and Al Qaeda ARE the freakin' Syrian oppositon! 

(I think that's the first time I've ever used underlining in this blog. Go ahead and accuse me shouting at the reader. Some things need to be shouted.)

Kagan here admits that he wants the US to fight for ISIS, not against ISIS. There are no actual moderate forces to speak of in the Syrian rebellion. Even Barack Obama, in one of those rare bursts of candor which have pockmarked his presidency, has admitted that this idea is a "fantasy."

Neocons like Kagan often pretend that they support "moderate" rebels, but this is pure fiction. The "moderate" Free Syrian Army is a joke -- in fact, Al Qaeda (a.k.a. the Nusra Front) and the FSA have joined forces. Although our press refuses to discuss such things, the FSA's record on human rights was always pretty horrific, and we should be glad that the group is now little more than a phantom. The FSA was never much more than a mask worn by Islamist warriors when they went begging for weapons and money; arms and ammo given to the "moderate" FSA tends to end up with the Islamic State.

By the way: Al Qaeda recently made a video thanking the United States for providing the jihadis with anti-tank weapons.

For people like Kagan, the war on ISIS is a pretext: It's all about regime change. He pretty much admits that toppling Bashar Assad is the only thing he really cares about. ISIS is simply a means to that end.

All of this talk about democracy-at-bayonet-point is pure deception: Kagan is bright enough to know that American intervention will not transform Damascus into the Athenian ideal. Removing Assad will simply create the same chaos we manufactured when we removed Saddam Hussein from power. Assad has already won a fair and free election, and he would win again tomorrow if another election were held -- presuming his name appeared on the ballot, which our president would never allow.

Remember: Both ISIS and the Nusra front sprang from Al Qaeda in Iraq -- a group which did not exist until we foolishly sent troops into that country.

If, during this campaign season, you ever get the chance to ask Hillary Clinton a question, ask her if she will ever rid herself of the consummately evil Kagan clan. Those warmongering schemers are monsters. Monsters.
Allegedly when a moment of silence was announced at a public sports event in Turkey, the fans BOOED. Turkey seems to get very little scrutiny. May I assume they own an atom bomb or two? So Turkish forces would be used in Syria?
Kagan is a, if not the, grandee of bipartisan neoconservativism - armchair commander-in-chief, one of the great living exemplars of the political class's Greek-columned pseudo-intellectualism. He says Assad will face new "facts on the ground" because with American boots on the ground the Russian bombing will be - just like that - "halted." Which I suppose is true, if in the sense that the Russian bombers will have been largely redirected to the European and American theaters.

It's as if the neocons are speaking to us, we of this world, from another dimension or an alternate reality. What is there left to be said about the neo-conservatives' dream logic? How could you even begin to respond to Kagan? It'd be like trying to disabuse Hitler in his final days in the Fuhrerbunker. There's the same blind faith that the Russians will just disappear - though it also must be said that the divisions the neocons control are quite real.

All the signs are that the US does not intend to work with Putin. Obama is pressuring Hollande to maintain economic sanctions against Russia and the US has upgraded its training of Ukrainian militia to now include regular units of the Ukrainian army.
Joe, it would be a pleasure to read an article wherein you apply your analytical capabilities to the current situation in Syria as it relates to the Oded Yinon plan for A Greater Israel. I've seen this mentioned repeatedly at both MofA and ZH and it does appear to go a long way towards explaining the ultimate strategic goal of all these wars we've been executing.

Your worries about Israeli, well let's skip the euphemism, Jewish domination of the Middle East and of course then the world, from whence does it come? Do you think Jews are just naturally smarter than everyone else? Do we have some secret knowledge that gives us this power? Perhaps Jews are in league with the devil? Mind control maybe? Or is it something else, I just can't imagine what else it would be.
Honestly, what's to like in Israel? It's a proto-fascist state actively engaged in genocide towards the native Palestinian people and I strongly believe Israel has done more to undermine the United States than any other "ally" on the planet. We have too many dual-citizens of Israel occupying our government and the near monolithic control over the money supply is suspect, too. I give respect where respect is due, but I don't mistake intelligence for a lack of humanity.
the big picture:

Post a Comment

<< Home

The right attempts to defend Trump. Hilarity ensues.

The right-wing blogs are defending Trump's allegation that "thousands" of Muslims in New Jersey were seen cheering the destruction of the World Trade Center in 2001. The leading story bears the headline: "Washington Post’s Fact Checker Doesn’t Read the Washington Post."
As I wrote in the earlier post, the Washington Post, on September 18, 2001, wrote:
In Jersey City, within hours of two jetliners’ plowing into the World Trade Center, law enforcement authorities detained and questioned a number of people who were allegedly seen celebrating the attacks and holding tailgate-style parties on rooftops while they watched the devastation on the other side of the river.
Cue the outrage and indignation! Trump had it right all along!

Except: He didn't.

It is obvious that the WP's 2001 article is a hideously abbreviated (and somewhat garbled) account of the five "dancing Israelis" who worked for Dominik Suter's scammy moving company, Urban Moving Systems. The young Israelis, who looked "Middle Eastern," reportedly had set up a camera before the event and celebrated as it occurred. They gave every appearance of having foreknowledge.
The New York Times reported Thursday that a group of five men had set up video cameras aimed at the Twin Towers prior to the attack on Tuesday, and were seen congratulating one another afterwards. (1)
Police received several calls from angry New Jersey residents claiming "middle-eastern" men with a white van were videotaping the disaster with shouts of joy and mockery. (2)

"They were like happy, you know … They didn't look shocked to me" said a witness. (3)
[T]hey were seen by New Jersey residents on Sept. 11 making fun of the World Trade Center ruins and going to extreme lengths to photograph themselves in front of the wreckage. (4)

Witnesses saw them jumping for joy in Liberty State Park after the initial impact (5). Later on, other witnesses saw them celebrating on a roof in Weehawken, and still more witnesses later saw them celebrating with high fives in a Jersey City parking lot. (6)
"It looked like they're hooked in with this. It looked like they knew what was going to happen when they were at Liberty State Park." (7)
(If you are confused by the numbers, I should explain that they refer to end notes in the linked article. The cites all go to contemporary news reports.)

True, someone did call the cops saying that "Palestinians" dressed in white "sheikh" clothing had loaded suspicious materials into a white van. It was a day of high excitement, so we can forgive a rattled witness who thought he saw swarthy miscreants dressed up like Lawrence of Arabia. A moment's thought would tell you that the very idea is ridiculous: Palestinians don't dress that way in the Middle East, and certainly would not do so while skulking around New Jersey.

Besides, how would the caller know that he saw Palestinians? The use of that term is, perhaps, quite revealing. It is possible that the caller was a co-conspirator intentionally trying to "false flag" the Palestinian people.

If so, the trick did not work, since the cops soon found the van and identified those within it.
When a van fitting that exact description was stopped just before crossing into New York, the suspicious "middle-easterners" were apprehended. Imagine the surprise of the police officers when these terror suspects turned out to be Israelis!
According to ABC’s 20/20, when the van belonging to the cheering Israelis was stopped by the police, the driver of the van, Sivan Kurzberg, told the officers:

"We are Israelis. We are not your problem. Your problems are our problems. The Palestinians are your problem." (10)
Why did he feel Palestinians were a problem for the NYPD?

The police and FBI field agents became very suspicious when they found maps of the city with certain places highlighted, box cutters (the same items that the hijackers supposedly used), $4700 cash stuffed in a sock, and foreign passports. Police also told the Bergen Record that bomb sniffing dogs were brought to the van and that they reacted as if they had smelled explosives. (11)

The FBI seized and developed their photos, one of which shows Sivan Kurzberg flicking a cigarette lighter in front of the smouldering ruins in an apparently celebratory gesture. (12)
A trace of the van's license plate revealed that it was owned by Suter's company. Fascinatingly, a Jerusalem Post report of the incident left out the all-important detail that the people in the van were Israeli! This omission prefigured Trump's error.
A few days after the attacks, Urban Moving System's Israeli owner, Dominick Suter, dropped his business and fled the country for Israel. He was in such a hurry to flee America that some of Urban Moving System's customers were left with their furniture stranded in storage facilities (21).
Suter's departure was abrupt, leaving behind coffee cups, sandwiches, cell phones and computers strewn on office tables and thousands of dollars of goods in storage. Suter was later placed on the same FBI suspect list as 9/11 lead hijacker Mohammed Atta and other hijackers and suspected al-Qaeda sympathizers, suggesting that U.S. authorities felt Suter may have known something about the attacks. (22)
The Jewish weekly The Forward reported that the FBI finally concluded that at least two of the detained Israelis were agents working for the Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency, and that Urban Moving Systems, the ostensible employer of the five Israelis, was a front operation. This was confirmed by two former CIA officers, and they noted that movers' vans are a common intelligence cover. (23). The Israelis were held in custody for 71 days before being quietly released. (24)
"There was no question but that [the order to close down the investigation] came from the White House. It was immediately assumed at CIA headquarters that this basically was going to be a cover-up so that the Israelis would not be implicated in any way in 9/11." (25)
I apologize for the lengthy quotation of a piece which is itself filled with long quotes. I tell this story in detail to emphasize one point: Our right-wingers (most of whom are strong supporters of Israel) made a hilariously unwise decision when they dredged up this matter.

We have zero evidence that there were "Muslims" celebrating on that day. The September 18, 2001 WP report does not mention Muslims; it obviously refers to "Dominik's boys." If we view that WP story in conjunction with all of the other contemporary news coverage, it soon becomes clear that those young Israelis were the only rooftop "partiers" questioned by police.

There are no contemporary reports of celebratory Muslims -- just celebratory Israelis.

Were those Israelis merely conducting surveillance, as many have alleged (and as they themselves claimed on Israeli television)? Initial news reports held that the van was carrying explosives. If so, then we have no choice but to consider the theory that these Israelis were planning to destroy the bridge -- on the same day that the twin towers came down. (For more on the explosives, see the video embedded above.)

Anyone who doubts the sourcing for this story need merely double-check the citations. Or go to Google and look up the relevant terms -- Dominik Suter, "Urban Moving Systems," "Dancing Israelis," Sivan Kurzberg, Paul Kurzberg, Yaron Shmuel, Oded Ellner and Omer Marmari.

Is ABC News mainstream enough for you...?
Millions saw the horrific images of the World Trade Center attacks, and those who saw them won't forget them. But a New Jersey homemaker saw something that morning that prompted an investigation into five young Israelis and their possible connection to Israeli intelligence.
This report is surprisingly good for a mainstream news piece, although it downplays the darker implications. ABC makes no mention of the explosives, or of the reports that the Israelis set up cameras before the event. (The fact that we have never seen their footage is very telling.) There is also no mention of the fact -- amply documented elsewhere -- that "Urban Moving Systems" was a criminal enterprise, as were many other Israeli-run moving companies in that period, operating with seeming impunity. (See here and here and here.)

My question: Did Donald Trump display a failing memory...or did he intentionally bring up an incident that Israel's blinkered fans would prefer to keep forgotten? If the former, he's a fool. If the latter, he's brilliant.


As always: I will never allow assholes to use this blog to blather on about "controlled demolition" and similar nonsense. In my opinion, those myths were deliberately created to deflect attention from the tale of Suter and his lads. 

Alas, I know full well that if the "controlled demolition" nutcases get a foot in the door, they will barge in and wreck the joint. One must never argue with such people, not even for a moment. They are like Holocaust revisionists and those dolts who think we never went to the moon: Utterly unworthy of debate. 

Therefore, the only person allowed to discuss 9/11 on this blog is yours truly. You may not discuss the issue here from any perspective. An unfair rule? Perhaps, but experience is a harsh teacher, and I learned my lesson nearly a decade ago. The "controlled demolition" bozos must not be allowed even the slightest opening.

It's a big internet, folks, and there are other sites. Dig or split.
I dig and I'm still here. Trump IS brilliant. Isn't it interesting that you never see Donald Trump and Bill Clinton in the same place at the same time?
What exactly would they have been covering up about Urban Moving Systems, and why would their truck have tested positive for explosives?
So is this just an egregious error of memory from the Donald (which I can accept as more likely), or some oblique message he's sending (someone?) in a deniable way?

Either way, it picks up a rock long forgotten to expose what's crawling underneath it.

A view most will probably not take or hear about, and something easily distracted from (hey, look! a squirrel!!!)

The Dancing Israelis story is very disturbing and may have been designed to be so. It induces a state of cognitive dissonance by which most people who hear about it simply reject the facts, and only a very few (such as you and I, Joseph) examine the facts, and only a few leap to confirmation-biased conclusions.

WhatReallyHappened's opening sentence is very telling: "A Mossad surveillance team made quite a public spectacle of themselves on 9-11." Since when do Mossad agents go around making a spectacle of themselves? Hmmmm

Dan Rather's report is that the celebrants were on a rooftop parking lot. Other reports place them in Liberty Park. Do we have TWO iterations of the Dancing Israelis? Hmmmmm.

So we're supposed to believe that the Israelis celebrated spontaneously? And they remembered to bring their Arab costumes beforehand? And they blew the cover on the Mossad's massive attack on the USA because they had to act like a bunch of drunken frat boys?

The Counterpunch writeup says they celebrated in the proximity of a white van that advertised their cover, Urban Moving Systems. And then by all accounts they were arrested in the very same van a few hours later. Was it a spontaneous reaction that they hadn't bothered to clean out the cash, the box cutters, and the explosive residue? These Mossadnicks are starting to look like Rummy and Bush.

So let's talk about the "Picture Van". This was a van stopped a few blocks from the improvised security HQ in Manhattan--stopped at King and 6th if I remember, and stopped because it had a painted mural showing an airplane attacking Manhattan. The driver was a Middle Easterner who did not speak English. He and his passenger were let go. Thus they must have been Israelis. No other explanation is possible. Did the Israelis paint a van with so provocative a scene out of spontaneous enthusiasm?

That's enough for now. I'll have some followup posts if you'll let me.
"Since when do Mossad agents go around making a spectacle of themselves?"

Actual Mossad agents are, of course, very professional. (Usually.) But they are surprisingly few in number: There is a SEVERE personnel shortage. (This is one of the things we learn from Ostrovsky's books.) Operations thus often rely on non-pros -- increasingly, we are talking about kids fresh out of the IDF.

They are, to put it bluntly, young and dumb.

Nevertheless, these amateurs were the backbone of the biggest spy ring in the history of this country -- the "art students" ring. I ran into a few of these kids at the Northridge Mall, a number of years ago: They were sneering and paranoid and not really very bright, although they seemed to think that they were hot shit.

Honestly, I have no idea how Israeli ops are so successful when the field agents are little better than toddlers. But that's how those guys roll.
I'd bet money he got it from the following article in Investors Business Daily in early 2007:

I think he just lied about witnessing it himself instead of reading about it; and the location is wrong. New Jersey is mentioned as a similar place to "Northern Viginiastan's" "Taliban Towers", however.
So Joseph, you think the pro Mossad 9/11 perps somehow let it slip to the beanie-brigade that the op was coming, and the beanies spontaneously outed the op? And then after they did so, their supervisors didn't instruct them to clean out the van?

Who have you been hanging out with, lately?

You didn't address the Picture Van. Did the beanies spontaneously out the op by painting it on a van? The van shows that it was all theater.

It appears that the Mossad ordered the beanies to get arrested so they could insert in the public record the fact that they knew about 9/11 in advance. According to the German Press they had warned US authorities of 19 terrorists inside the US planning something big, and even named names.

Putting their foreknowledge in the public record would give them great blackmail material against the Bush administration.

The second benefit of the Dancing Israelis stunt was that it created a great meme to track through the internets--see who believes it, see who promotes it. Larry Silverstein's "pull it" stunt did the same thing, creating a meme to track through the internet.

Trump's not fucking with Israel. C'mon, no candidate does that. So, yes, I reckon the statement was for tracking purposes.

If you're in CPMAJO and you're discussing who you're going to appoint as the next US President, and in what directions you're going to send the candidates, then what they say about 911 is going to get considered. So is what they say about Israel. Tweak, tweak, track, track.

But I doubt that that was the reason for those Israelis being there with the van and getting noticed and arrested in the first place. Arrogant fuckfaces in sunglasses just out of the IDF sounds more like it. Even ones moving loads of explosives about. The Zionist support network for the 911 op - Urban Moving Services, art students, etc. - was huge.

The dancing Israelis sued US officials afterwards, seeking compensation for how they'd been treated. They lost. The legal docs are on the net. No shame whatsoever. Didn't Robert Fisk call the Israeli army "undisciplined rabble"?

The reference to "thousands" suggests that someone may have slipped "New Jersey" into Trump's speech later. Perhaps the original untrue statement was that Muslims all went "Yeah!" when they heard about 911. Then somewhere in the colouring and filling-in and soundbite creation process, New Jersey gets inserted. I mean Trump does talk a hell a lot of shit. Most people probably just hear "Ayrabs wanna kill yall".
Post a Comment

<< Home

Terror drill

Many believe that terror attacks tend to occur during drills and simulations. Know, then, that the largest bio-attack drill ever staged will begin today in southern California, and will last until the 28th. Los Angeles county is not listed as one of the staging areas, but most other counties will be impacted.
As the week progresses, the drill will expand, requiring participants to deploy to various areas.

Temporary medical facilities will be established, and first responders will react to mock mass casualty situations, according to state officials.

Some participants will be clad in chemical protection suits and masks to create as much realism as possible, officials said, emphasizing that members of the public should not panic.
More here. We learn that the focus will be on anthrax.

Some sites claim that there were drills in Paris on the day of the recent terrorist outrage: See here.
In what can be described as an extremely strange “coincidence,” Paris-area emergency personnel and ambulance crews were taking part in a simulated emergency exercise on the very same day the Paris terrorist attacks took place.

The exact nature of the drill was a simulated mass shooting attack, according to Dr. Mathieu Raux, emergency room chief at the Pitié-Salpetrière hospital in Paris.
It is well-known that NORAD was conducted a test called Vigilant Guardian on September 11, 2001. There was a drill in London during the 7/7 event in 2005. Although you may have read claims that the Boston bomb squad was conducting a simulation at the time of the Boston Marathon explosions, this allegation appears to be groundless.

I wouldn't be overly concerned about the California event: Preparation is a good thing, and many drills have occurred on days which turned out to be completely uneventful. Nevertheless, a pattern may indeed exist. Sleep well...!

Two people in Britain have called me a "conspiracy theorist" for mentioning that many people in the Bataclan - a crowded theatre in which men fired semi-automatic AK47s to kill - died in a stampede rather than by being shot.

Recognition of the fact that this is how many people died - a fact which has been confirmed by witness evidence and is in any case obvious - is considered by many people in the west to be more than their position as submissive mental serfs is worth. No logic needed. Eyes to the front, shut up, and repeat what you see on the television.

Mustn't say anything different; it's naughty - especially when soldiers are (or soon will be) on the streets.

They even think it's disrespectful to the dead and wounded. I despair of such people.

I mention this because I think the subjective conditions are present for a western bombing attack that does not destroy ISIS but which is aimed at destroying the Syrian government.

And in that scenario, Russia will respond.

Mikhail Gorbachev's prognosis of another "cold war" is IMO mistaken.

"Cold war" is usually a superficial concept, and not just in the minds of ignoramuses who think it lasted more than 40 years, ending in 1989, and that the Fischer-Spassky chess match in 1972 happened at the height of it.

You'd be better off talking about an arms race - especially in the late 1950s and early 1960s - lots of superpower weapons in Poland and Germany etc., limited controls of technological exports, and US and Soviet war-preparatory structures of control over many countries in Europe and some further afield.

We ain't going to be getting a cold war now.

Back in those days there were only four domains of warfare, and space was new. Now there's a fifth: cyberspace.

And the psychological war has already begun. And I mean war. This isn't similar to the 1964 swap of British spy Greville Wynne for Soviet spy Konon Molody (Gordon Lonsdale), when the British press reported that whereas Molody was a spy, Wynne was just an innocent businessman wrongly accused. We are on a very different scale now.

But...hold on! The retarded "prince" Charles is on the case: he thinks "climate change" was the root cause of the war in Syria. And Reuters are distributing the "news" of what this dickhead thinks. "We're now facing a real possibility," said this fanatic of monarchistic 'natural' order, "of nature's bank going bust."

As I understand it, more carbon dioxide is produced by spiders farting than by the whole of humanity, either from our bodies or from industry.
Simulated Anthrax attack; hmm. Wonder who is already taking Cipro.
I have been waiting for the other shoe to drop since some thirty or more labs "accidentally" were sent live anthrax spores. Everybody forgot about that one yet?
Post a Comment

<< Home

The great unpleasantness

I have semi-vowed to stay away from 1963 in these pages, but David Talbot's piece in Salon is worth reading. That said, I am heterodox: I do not believe that Allen Dulles orchestrated the event, although he oversaw much of the cover-up. In my view, the event itself was planned on the second floor of CIA HQ by one James Jesus Angleton, who hoped to spark World War III. A great mischief-maker, Jimmy was.

To get a little closer to the truth, or at least my idea of the truth, you may want to hear this interview with the remarkable Kevin Coogan. The first part will strike many of you as overly-detailed stuff for the advanced students. But stick with it. The interview derives from this article by Coogan, published in Lobster.
Please don't become one of those "active shooter drill" truthers, Joe.
Post a Comment

<< Home

Sunday, November 22, 2015

Terror and Trump and the exploding pizza man

Here we are, halfway through Sunday, and the terrorist apocalypse has not yet occurred -- although there is much fear and trembling: See here and here and here.

So why am I asking you, on this day, to view a documentary (embedded above) about the well-known "exploding pizza man" case? Because a thought occurred to me: How do we know that a terrorist wearing an explosive-laden vest has donned that garment of his or her own accord? Explosives can be detonated by remote control; the technology is neither expensive nor unusual. So how do we know that the person wearing the vest is acting under his or her own volition?

If I were really, really paranoid, I might go so far as to suggest that the pizza man case is best explained as a proof of concept operation. Robbery does not seem to have been the actual motive, since the crime could never have succeeded. (It seems that the mastermind of the operation was an unhinged woman with delusions of superiority.)

Cheering in NJ. Trump has made a startling claim...
"I watched when the World Trade Center came tumbling down, and I watched in Jersey City, New Jersey where thousands and thousands of people were cheering as that building was coming down,” he said.

While there were images of people cheering the towers’ collapse in parts of the Middle East, there is no record of such celebrations in New Jersey. There were some Internet rumors of Muslims celebrating the towers’ fall in Paterson, New Jersey, but those rumors were discounted by local police at the time.
There was cheering in New Jersey on that day, but the people involved were those of whom we must never speak. (All attempts to debunk that event and to diminish its importance have been, in my view, unpersuasive and strained.)

By the way: A lot of people don't know that Dominik Suter, the guy who ran that moving company, kept an apartment in Los Angeles -- Sherman Oaks, if memory serves. I drove by the address one night. A rather posh place -- "south of the Boulevard," as we say in the San Fernando Valley. Suter was, in essence, a low-level crook: He ran one of those scammy moving companies that ripped off customers with seeming impunity. Kind of odd for a guy like that to keep up the rent on a pricey second home on the other side of the country, don't you think?

(No, dear readers, you may not discuss 9/11 here -- no matter who you are, and no matter what your perspective. If you try to do so, I will delete your comment mercilessly. Yes, I realize that I am being unfair -- but I have no choice: What happened to this blog in 2006 left a lasting scar. I will never change my stance, I will never respond to your inquiries, and I don't have to justify my decisions to anyone. Dig or split.)

I wonder: Is Trump intentionally making an oblique reference to Suter & co.?
What happened to your blog in 2006? Sorry, I didn't hear.

Dunno about Muslims* cheering on 911, but I do know Turkish Muslims booed when asked to give moment of silence to the French victims of rabid Wahhabism. So from that, it's not to hard to infer what is in many Muslims hearts.

Anybody who has been to Pakistan can see for themselves how radicalizing the Saudi proselytizing madrasas are. Who ever heard of school, for which there is but one book to study? Muslims have been radicalized by the Gulf States embrace and financial support of radical Wahhabism

And let's not forget Mr. Erdoğan has been perfectly willing to aid ISIL murdering mayhem in the hopes of gaining some of the Ottoman Empire back...with the consent of the Turkish populace.

*One Israeli woman appeared on TV positively glowing, she felt 911 would cause cause American citizens to support Israels treatment of Palestinians and their territorial gains over Arab lands. [She was right].


@S Brennan - "One Israeli woman appeared on TV positively glowing, she felt 911 would cause cause American citizens to support Israels treatment of Palestinians and their territorial gains over Arab lands. [She was right]."

That formulation is far too vague. On 12 Sep 2001, the day following 911, Israeli tanks rolled into the cities of Jericho and Jenin on the West Bank. Three days later, they rolled into Ramallah, also on the West Bank.

The Israelis hadn't done anything like that since the Oslo agreement of 1995. Their military action that immediately followed 911 marked a major change: they made it absolutely clear that they were tearing up the agreement and that they were no longer going down the route of Gaza and Jericho first, followed by a Palestinian state.
Well, if you're not going to permit any discussion, there's no point in trying to put forth a very reasonable perspective on the "Dancing Israelis" incident (hint--it is explained by the presence of the "picture van" in Lower Manhattan).
Post a Comment

<< Home

Saturday, November 21, 2015

Anonymous vs. ISIS: A few thoughts

Anonymous reports that it has uncovered evidence of an ISIS threat against various targets around the world -- Paris, Italy, Lebanon. Something will happen on Sunday, although we don't know what. The group says that it has relayed what it has learned to western intelligence agencies.

The FBI has confirmed that it knows of an unspecific threat against Atlanta, Georgia, where some sort of wrestling match will entertain local boobs.

More here:
The report also mentioned “unconfirmed” threats at the WWE Survivor Series event in Atlanta; Feast of Christ the King celebrations in Rome and worldwide; an event in Indonesia called Al-Jihad: One Day One Juz; a concert by Five Finger Death Punch in Milan; and University Pastoral Day at the Holy Spirit University of Kaslik in Lebanon.

The hacktivists said the information was received from “several pro-Daesh [IS] accounts,” and that the attacks were all meant to take place November 22.
The date is a droll touch.

My reactions:

1. Is it really possible for Anonymous to learn of a large-scale terror attack which remains unknown to the NSA, GCHQ, Unit 8200 and all similar Orwellian Nightmare Units?

2. In the past, FBI informants have worked their way into the heart of Anonymous. So the true author of this "Anonymous" message may be Uncle.

3. Do you recall the Anonymous spin-off which tried to mount the Great Halloween Insurrection (which never occurred?) Anonymous has within its ranks some testosterone-filled rage-junkies who are a lot like the testosterone-filled rage-junkies who join ISIS. Less effective, though.

4. Given all of the above points, is it not possible that parties within Anonymous invented this entire business?

Incidentally, the right-wing blogs were all over this story instantly. (As far as I can tell, this is the only liberal blogger to take notice. Before me, that is.) We should always be suspicious when the right side of the internet functions in a highly-coordinated fashion.
Accounts with which companies?

It's interesting that western news editors aren't drawing the obvious conclusion: that, as you say, the US, Britain, France, Germany etc., can't attack their enemies in the cyberspace domain (the fifth domain of contemporary warfare, after land, sea, air and space) by themselves (when did they get surpassed, eh?), but they leave that up to a gang of masked libertarian seldom-bathing hippies who owe allegiance to no state (cough cough), but who wear masks referring to Alan Moores' V for Vendetta.

That's the message that's going in to people's heads, though.

I reckon there's something, er, not true about it.

Anonymous is the CIA, just like Facebook. If they did invent it, that in itself would be no reason for the western media to channel the story in such a big way.

But some people still believe in the Arab Spring.
Leading Australian media agency the ABC is running with the (inexcusable) propaganda crap that Islamic State will thrive while president Assad's atrocities go unpunished. The usual list of lies are all there.

I'm a regular correspondent to the ABC editors and on occasions seem to have some sway with them. I'll be ripping them a new asshole this afternoon.
Whoops! My bad. The ABC story dates back to Aug 23. I'd arrived there following a link from today's news items and thought the issue was current. Still, there's something disturbing about a senior Middle East correspondent of a supposedly independent Western news agency citing Human Rights Watch as an independent, reliable source of commentary, and repeating the lie about the sarin gas attack on Ghouta. The political mindset is also abysmal. Not only does Sophie McNeill show little awareness of alternative political narratives or factual claims on Syria events she falls prey to the transparent nonsense that all will be sweetness and light if Assad were to go.

An Australian academic, Prof.Tim Anderson, has been providing some sensible balance. But it is disturbing to see the persistence of various propaganda myths in our media.

Sorry about the snafu, folks.
We'll see. I agree that some sort of infiltration has happened, and that they are coordinating their release with the conservative bloggers. Now, is it to discredit Anon, or to elevate them? No attacks and it's a bit of a wash, but also they become somewhat crying wolf. Attacks, and they become elevated; which to me, pretty much secures that they've been infiltrated and are being used to propagandize terror to a new reach that the old machines can not.
Sounds like the Jay Jonah Jamieson Spiderman Credo, "Trust no one in a mask".
At least if someone else tried to impersonate Spiderman I could always tell because they never were as bad ass and their webtrails tasted different and were not environmentally friendly and always sold for less on ebay.
Joseph, I've put some notes together about Anne Applebaum with key words Legatum, NATO, CIA funding, Bildeberg, US State Department and the US ambassador to Kiev. No conclusions, just random bits that might be of interest.

There is background material in a previous comments section here.
"Christ the King" and "Belgium" - that's a very interesting bag of memes.

Two more links: Jean Ousset (inventor of the concept of subversion) and Belgian Rexism.

The "Rex" in "Rexism" refers to Christ being the King ("Rex"). This little-mentioned strand of fascism bigged up the concept of "Christ the King" - and also the use of torture against "subversion" - and goes back to the Catholic extreme-right in the Spanish civil war. It comes down through Latin America, Belgium and French Algeria. (As I think Robert Fisk has rightly observed, the role of Algeria in people's minds is an important factor in current developments.) This strand had far more grip at an international level than Mussolini's version ever did. Mussolini didn't get religion, and had little influence internationally except for the salute; Hitler and Ousset did.

Ousset had been the secretary of Charles Maurras, leader of Action Francaise, the monarchist party in France that was once officially supported by the Vatican.

(Before anyone points it out, I should add that many take part in the festival of "Christ the King" who are neither fascist nor Roman Catholic, and of course, very many people are one of these without being the other.)

Right now, France is cracking.

"Anonymous" - ha ha. They say they only went public because that was the quickest way of getting their "intel" to "the authorities". Bullshit!

"We wanted the authorities to know about this as quickly as possible so that we could prevent too much attention being drawn to our account (which is why we it shut down [sic], it was about getting the intel to them, not about us getting attention)"

Can anyone spot the confusion here, conveyed by this parenthetical whinging gloss?

Here it is: not having X as your aim is one thing; having the prevention of X as your aim is another.

It's a bit like when someone says "I'm not lying to you". They always are.

In actual fact, the publicity being given to Anonymous right now is very much part of the ongoing psywar.

Some big-time geopolitical psywar is going on here.

One could make the educated guess that Anonymous spoke to RT.

As Linebarger says in his book Psychological Warfare, psywar starts before the physical conflict and continues after it. I am neither exaggerating nor joking when I say that WW3 has already begun.


* Russia was completely outplaying the west in psywar, including in the relationship between psywar and the use of its physical forces in Syria and the Caspian (sea, air, cyberspace)

* ...until the Sinai plane crash, when the west landed some powerful blows (I was surprised!) and Russia was on its back foot for a while

* ...and now Russia is striking back (hello Anonymous, thanks RT)

* ...and the fight is going to another level.

Who has taken it to a new level? I don't know. But it had to go to a new level anyway. WW3 won't be called off.

France is cracking, and Russia is (for how long?) ascendant.

Check out Alexandr Dugin (you'd have to be naive not to suss that the KGB - oops, sorry, FSB - holds at least a large majority of the shares in this guy) and the Belgian philosopher Jean-François Thiriart. See also Christian Bouchet in France and the Franco-Belgian Parti communautaire national-européen.

Apocalypticism is growing in all meme-pools.
@B (upper-case B)

Anonymous are "infiltrated"? That's putting it far too mildly.

Alessandro has it right: "trust no-one in a mask".
Maybe not off topic, but Belgium has figured largely in war propaganda before. In 1914 British newspapers were filled with stories about "plucky little Belgium" and crimes of the invading "Huns." I believe George Orwell wrote a piece about the mendacity of war propaganda, especially in regard to Belgium and the repetition of the phrase "raping nuns on tables." Of course the propaganda was used to drum up war fervor for the war that would be "over by Christmas" and ended up lasting over four years and killing millions while enriching war profiteers' families for the next three generations.

The Russians, being ignorant of how capitalism works, haven't yet realized that it is just as profitable to drop bombs for years into uninhabited deserts as it was back in the 60s and 70s to drop bombs into uninhabited jungles in southeast Asia.
Good enemies are hard to find and sometimes you have to create your own. ISIS doesn't seem to have the durability of the North Vietnamese armies of the 1960s or their Viet Cong militias. But one makes do with the best materials at hand even though jihadis seem poor stuff compared to dedicated communists of the past.

Post a Comment

<< Home

Terror and the truth

And now we are being warned of an imminent terror strike in Belgium.
The announcement by the Crisis Centre of the Belgian Interior Ministry is advising the public to avoid places where large groups gather -- such as concerts, sporting events, airports and train stations -- and comply with security checks. The rest of the nation will maintain its current terror level.

If people take the terror alert seriously, Brussels will be "shut down tomorrow," CNN terrorism analyst Paul Cruickshank said.

"It suggests they have something specific and credible at the intelligence front pointing them in the direction that there may be a terrorist plot in the works," he said. "It also suggests they don't have a handle on it, that they don't know where these plotters are or where they're coming from."
Why is ISIS doing this? The group split from Al Qaeda over the very issue of mounting operations in western countries: ISIS insisted that their warriors should stay home and concentrate on establishing a caliphate in Syria. Why would ISIS mount terror attacks in Europe now? What can be gained from striking Belgium of all nations?

So far, the only sensible suggestion has been that ISIS/Al Qaeda hopes to foment an anti-Muslim reaction which would radicalize young Muslims and cause the jihadist ranks to swell. If so, conservatives in both the United States and Europe have performed their roles so well they might as well be on the ISIS payroll.

If you don't believe that the American right hopes to aid the terrorists, let me ask you one question: Why are so many politicians calling for a no fly zone over Syria?

ISIS has no air force. The people attacking ISIS have total control of the air. Why would we want to stop Russia and Syria from destroying ISIS encampments?

Why did John McCain insist that we should supply the jihadis with Stinger missiles? Why would we want to deprive the anti-ISIS forces of their great advantage?

The "no fly zone" makes sense only if we posit that the secret goal of the neocons is not to stop ISIS but to help them.

How else can you explain the wimpitude of our airstrikes against ISIS in Syria? Our air campaign -- grandly titled Operation Tidal Wave II -- is pure theater.

Moon of Alabama proves the point in an important piece which demonstrates that PBS used footage of a Russian strike against the jihadis to illustrate a story about our alleged efforts.
U.S. media can no agree with itself if Russia is giving ISIS an airforce or if Russia pounds ISIS with the biggest bomber raid in decades. Such confusion occurs when propaganda fantasies collide with the observable reality.
The U.S. military recently claimed to have hit Islamic State oil tankers in Syria. This only after Putin embarrassed Obama at the G-20 meeting in Turkey. Putin showed satellite pictures of ridiculous long tanker lines waiting for days and weeks to load oil from the Islamic State without any U.S. interference.

The U.S. then claimed to have hit 116 oil tankers while the Russian air force claims to have hit 500. But there is an important difference between these claims. The Russians provided videos showing how their airstrikes hit at least two different very large oil tanker assemblies with hundreds of tankers in each. They also provided video of several hits on oil storage sites and refinery infrastructure.

I have found no video of U.S. hits on Islamic State oil tanker assemblies.

The U.S. PBS NewsHour did not find any either.

In their TV report yesterday about Islamic State financing and the claimed U.S. hits on oil trucks they used the videos Russia provided without revealing the source. You can see the Russian videos played within an interview with a U.S. military spokesperson at 2:22 min.

The U.S. military spokesperson speaks on camera about U.S. airforce hits against the Islamic State. The video cuts to footage taken by Russian airplanes hitting oil tanks and then trucks. The voice-over while showing the Russian video with the Russians blowing up trucks says: "For the first time the U.S. is attacking oil delivery trucks." The video then cuts back to the U.S. military spokesperson.

At no point is the Russian campaign mentioned or the source of the footage revealed.
(A similarly mislabeled piece of footage was broadcast during the American invasion of Baghdad. I can discuss this at greater length in another post.)
Propaganda and reality also collide in the larger U.S. policy on Syria. President Obama claims that the "overwhelming majority of people in Syria" want the Syrian President Assad to leave. But independent British polling in Syria found (pdf) that a strong plurality of Syrians prefers him as president over any of the available alternatives.
You will never see our mainstream press refer to Assad as the elected leader of his country, although observers from other nations found the 2014 Syrian vote to be free, fair and transparent.

Bottom line: America isn't fighting ISIS because America made ISIS.

The superb "Reality Check" video embedded above compelling evidence that the west intentionally instigated a jihadist insurrection in Syria. The paternity test proves that Uncle Sam is the daddy.

This video poses a key question: Why should we believe any politician (right or left) who blathers on about the need to combat ISIS if said pol isn't honest enough to admit our role in manufacturing the problem?

Justin King provides additional background here:
It started in 2006 when the US decided it wanted to oust Syrian President Assad and started laying the ground work. This was proven by leaked Saudi Arabian intelligence cables hosted on Wikileaks.
The same year, the Islamic State was just a half-baked insurgent group in Iraq. The group would then migrate to Syria, where it was reinforced by battalions of defecting Free Syrian Army troops who were trained by the United States. Many of those claimed to have ties to the Central Intelligence Agency. The Islamic State truly became a child of the United States.

In 2009, the United States began secretly funding opposition groups within Syria and even provided $6 million to Barada TV, a UK-based TV channel, to produce propaganda to support “regime change” inside Syria.

Slowly but surely, the US and its allies put this plan into effect until in March of 2011 spontaneous demonstrations popped up in Syria demanding Assad step down. Of course, Huffington Post UK would later point out that these demonstrations weren’t spontaneous at all. They were orchestrated by the Central Intelligence Agency.
Throughout this time the West has tried various methods of justifying an invasion. There were claims of chemical weapon attacks perpetrated by Assad, but the only proof offered was the analysis that the weapons might have originated from the Syrian military’s storerooms. The average American was smart enough to realize that it’s a civil war and that the weapons of all sides came from the Syrian military, except of those “accidentally” dropped to Islamic State forces by the United States. The chemical weapons claim disappeared when the Kurds were hit by chemical weapons. The Kurds were fighting the Islamic State, not Assad. There were scores of unsuccessful airstrikes launched by the West. They accomplished nothing, and the Islamic State continued to destabilize Assad. NATO allies openly attacked those fighting the Islamic State.
The west's war against ISIS is pure fabrication -- an obvious lie. Why, then do so many believe in this bunk?
The average American is simply too stupid to understand that the Islamic State is Assad’s enemy. The West has successfully sold people on the idea that removing Assad is somehow benefiting the fight against the Islamic State. And people cheer.
Recap: The United States planted the seeds of revolt through propaganda, led the demonstrations against Assad, helped arm and train the Islamic State, repeatedly pushed a false narrative to gain a pretext to invade, denied proper air support to those fighting the Islamic State, and will now capitalize on the murders committed by the Islamic State to achieve its goal of ousting Assad.
If I'm not mistaken, the NDAA repealed as quaint any existing prohibitions against the military focusing its formidable psy-ops capabilities on the domestic population. In other words, every byte of officially-sanctioned "news" we receive in this country might well be distorted to advance a wartime agenda. Everything we hear, from barrel bombs to claims of Russians bombing hospitals, could likely be scripted to maximize support for an otherwise brutal and sinister agenda.

Just a thought.
Such Cutting Edge Journalism, now go pick up your award from the very media entities that are pushing the U.S. lies.
Stay off the streets, citizens. Compliance will be rewarded.

Nothing is going to happen in Belgium, it's just fearmongering.

Operation Tidal Wave the first, incidentally, was a disaster.
Could Belgium be a target due to the location of Nato headquarters in Brussels?
"Average people" shouldn't be casually derided as "stupid", when the process and effect of information dissemination is rather complex. The mainstream media, like the political structure, is part of consensus reality and therefore gets the benefit of the doubt. That the media lies or the political structure is hopelessly corrupt challenges consensus reality, and acceptance or true understanding of this requires a radical shift in perception. Most people are unprepared for such a shift, as it requires a re-ordering of largely unconscious thought patterns and something of an effort. Many people are lazy or indifferent rather than stupid.

ISIS is and was a psy-op. The roll-out of the shiny new trucks was accompanied by a string of professionally produced atrocity videos uploaded directly to SITE and then widely disseminated by the MSM. Accompanying this was an orchestrated reaction across the Western political establishment, labelling ISIS as the greatest and most horrific threat ever, which required the re-positioning of NATO forces into the region for a struggle which would last, as military officials intoned, several decades. The obvious rational response - to identify and eliminate the sources of funding and supply - was never ever seriously engaged. ISIS was the tool by which the Middle East would become a NATO protectorate. These fanatic forces are being deliberately used to sow chaos in the Mid-East, in Africa, in a province of China, etc - as a form of warfare designed to extend Western corporate control across the planet.
Yes, reports on what the French bombed. Not a single person killed. They bombed exclusively places where no one was. Old training camps, old checkpoints. Nothing there.
"Terror and the truth". What I'd like to know for starters is how many people at the Bataclan were killed by gunfire or impact caused by explosion, and how many were killed by stampede.

In these times when more and more people are scared of being caught up in terror attacks, what to do if you're really caught up in an attack is something people need to think more about.

This is the genuinely terrifying microcosm that relates to the macrocosm of the role of terrorism in the contemporary culture, experienced (at the moment) by most people through the media.

This article is worth reading, from Russia Today. Those who have the time should also watch the video interview with Pierre Janaszak, a Bataclan survivor. (Interesting how RT works with Google's Youtube.)

Janaszak describes the "apocalypse" in the theatre, the terror, the hysteria, and how, for example, even a pregnant woman got trampled.

The guy looks very human and genuine to me.

He suggests that many people were killed by stampede.

"We were 300 running... You walk on everybody. You don't care about anybody... This is the apocalypse."

He describes how he felt leaving his sister behind, thinking she was dead:

"(not) because of the guns, but because of the people running on her."

He describes how his consciousness went to his phone, and facing possible imminent death he thought of contacting his parents and saying sorry to them - but couldn't, because he'd had to turn his phone off.

He describes the terrorist, who seemed so French, and how he didn't hear any "religion stuff".

He describes how when the police told everyone to run, and not to look at anything, he and others walked on a pleading woman who was saying "help me" - and how he feels about that.

Dunno whether she's your type, Joseph, but the interviewer Sophie Shevardnadze, wearing red heels, is Eduard Shevardnadze's granddaughter - and a graduate of the Paris Conservatoire. She talks of good and evil and God.

The setting for the interview is pretty weird in places: wallpaper, peeling gilt on a picture frame.

RT left in the bit where he says innocent people are killed by advanced countries, and in particular by those countries which aim to spread the "western way of life".

"This is the end of the world (...) like the Second World War, this is the beginning of the end."

Meanwhile, in the macrocosm...
Post a Comment

<< Home

Friday, November 20, 2015

The F word

So much has occurred today, and I have had so little time to write. Sorry; please check back in a short while. For now, let me simply say this: Donald Trump and Marco Rubio have crossed the line into out and out fascism.

Actually, the F word is notoriously hard to define. It's like pornography: One knows it when one sees it. I see it.

Those who claim (as the Breitbarters and Rush Limbaugh do) that Trump is being smeared have not looked at the full evidence. The Rachel Maddow episode embedded above will make matters crystal clear.
Read the transcript; you've been had

No I haven't been "had." Watch the video.
I watched the video 1st and Trump never answered the question, but made an entirely different point. The reporter simply lied about the response. I simply assumed the best intentions when I said you had been conned, my bad.

BTW, the article has been edited to delete the full transcript. Too bad the link I gave has been broken by ?
Another reporter has more details and points out the video editing.

The wheels are coming off the apple cart. Fascism on the rise. WWIII with the Russians and the Chinese on the horizon. Charlie Sheen has AIDS. Shits gettin real as they say. Need to buy some more popcorn tomorrow.
Post a Comment

<< Home

More terror

Mali. As I write, this news just came in...
Gunmen attacked a luxury hotel in Bamako, Mali on Friday, taking 170 guests and hotel staff hostage, according the company that runs the hotel.

In a statement issued on its website, the Rezidor Hotel Group, which operates the Radisson Blu hotel in Bamako, said it “is aware of the hostage-taking that is ongoing at the property today, 20th November 2015. … Our safety and security teams and our corporate team are in constant contact with the local authorities in order to offer any support possible to re-instate safety and security at the hotel.”

Thirty of the hostages are hotel staff, the group said. The other 140 are guests. The statement said that “two persons” have locked in the 170 hostages.

Citing a security source, Reuters put the number of gunmen at 10.
Some background, courtesy Agence-France Presse...
The shooting at the Radisson follows a nearly 24-hour siege and hostage-taking at another hotel in August in the central Malian town of Sevare in which five UN workers were killed, along with four soldiers and four attackers.

Five people, including a French citizen and a Belgian, were also killed in an attack at a restaurant in Bamako in March in the first such incident in the capital.

Islamist groups have continued to wage attacks in Mali despite a June peace deal between former Tuareg rebels in the north of the country and rival pro-government armed groups.

Northern Mali fell in March-April 2012 to Al-Qaeda-linked jihadist groups long concentrated in the area before being ousted by an ongoing French-led military operation launched in January 2013.

Despite the peace deal, large swathes of Mali remain beyond the control of government and foreign forces.
It's important to recall that, not long ago, David Petraeus and other neocons were urging an American alliance with Al Qaeda, because the program of regime change in Syria trumps all other concerns.

According to the Telegraph, hostages are being freed if they can prove their ability to recite verses from the Koran. Apparently, Chinese nationals are among the hostages. I wonder how Beijing will react...?

Is a chemical attack coming soon? This is cute...
The Islamic State group is aggressively pursuing development of chemical weapons, setting up a branch dedicated to research and experiments with the help of scientists from Iraq, Syria and elsewhere in the region, according to Iraqi and U.S. intelligence officials.
You gotta love these stories which quote unnamed spooks. Actually, ISIS has had access to chemical weapons for a while. Here's a story from The Guardian, published in July of 2014.

And here is Sy Hersh's all-important account...
On 20 June analysts for the US Defense Intelligence Agency issued a highly classified five-page ‘talking points’ briefing for the DIA’s deputy director, David Shedd, which stated that al-Nusra maintained a sarin production cell: its programme, the paper said, was ‘the most advanced sarin plot since al-Qaida’s pre-9/11 effort’.
Okay, that's a reference to Nusra/Al Qaeda, not ISIS. But everyone know that ISIS and Nusra have worked together and should now be considered "as one" operationally. I've already devoted many, many posts to exposing the fact that the anti-Assad rebels were the ones who used sarin in two Damascus suburbs in 2013.

Several recently-published stories have warned of an imminent chemical attack from ISIS. Most of these stories have appeared on right-wing sites, such as Brietbart, but some have not. See, for example, here.

I suspect that we are being readied for something.
The military-industrial-media state likes to precondition the population for future terrorist attacks so that it appears that our security services are effectively collecting intelligence as it relates to our ostensible enemies, when in reality they're only indicating exactly what their actual plans are.

"Chatter" as it relates to terrorist plans is the equivalent of a trailer before a movie; just enough to let the audience understand the gist of what they're going to experience but lacking the crucial details.
Does that mean you expect a false flag?
Informative article in the Atlantic by William McCants, on the religious beliefs promoted by Daesh(Isis) and their significance. Note in particular the view that Shi'ites deserve death because they are apostates.

The Sharon doctrine lies in the past.

McCants pushes the message that negotiation with Daesh is impossible. I doubt that's how they see it at Langley or for that matter at the Quai d'Orsay. After all, Daesh are selling oil for money - and not just for money, but for US dollars.

But a key fact to grasp here is the apocalypticism.

Another is the role of Youtube and Twitter in Daesh's projection of its power and in its recruiting. Don't tell me the CIA or NSA couldn't stop that in the next hour if they got the go-ahead. And I don't want to hear any legal shit about what constitutes a "publisher" either. This is war, and in war you don't do the other side's propaganda for it.

McCants discusses, but doesn't advocate, a US invasion of Syria and a US strategy of giving Daesh the last battle, at Dabiq, that they desire.

He points out that

"the risks of escalation are enormous. The biggest proponent of an American invasion is the Islamic State itself."

Well yeah. And here we have the motive for attacks such as the one in Paris.

I wouldn't advocate anyone going long on the Dow Jones. I really wouldn't.

"The rise of ISIS, after all, happened only because our previous occupation created space for Zarqawi and his followers. Who knows the consequences of another botched job?"

Clue: it begins with an "a" and ends in "lypse".

At the end, McCants ends up backing a policy of talking up a non-Daeshist version of Salafism, one that backs handchopping, crucifixion and a caliphate, but some time in the future.

And at that point, his commitment to understanding politics and religion at the same time goes out of the window. The word he misses out is "Saudi". Non-Daeshist Salafism may not have a caliphate, but it already has a headchopping and handchopping state - on the peninsula - one that is extending its reach.
The Bataclan theatre where the biggest massacre just took place in Paris was owned by a Jewish guy for decades, who used it to stage events in support of the Israeli army and "Jewish charities". He sold it in September.

He denies that the venue was chosen because of anything to do with Jews or Israel.

But that's not the question.

The question is whether he is a sayan who ever put his building at the disposal of Mossad.

b, that's getting into potentially very ugly territory. I fail to see how the previous ownership of that building has any bearing on this episode. You're reaching.
The al-Qaeda incursion into Mali was another result of the Libyan regime-change operation undertaken by NATO and applauded across the board by the political and media establishment of NATO countries. Clear-thinking is in demand and so utterly absent where it matters.
I'm speculating.

Previous ownership? Facts: the guy owned it for decades and was well in with the Zionists, using the building for propaganda and fund-raising. He inherited it from his father. Then he sold it two months ago but he still considers himself to have a close relationship with it.

Two months ago, he sold it!

It's not exactly unlikely that he was a sayan, who would have put the building at Mossad's disposal at very short notice.

Say they wanted it for something that would take a few weeks of preparation and required that he sell it.

How did the Daesh combatants enter the building carrying their AK47s and grenades?
If he was a sayan, what I'm suggesting becomes very credible.
And it's more than likely he was.
One more comment: the French cops who stormed the Bataclan may have completely fucked up.

One told Le Monde that "he shot (a Daesh combatant) in the chest and then his suicide belt went off, but he still does not know if it was the bullet that caused it".

That doesn't sound to me at all like an adequately trained guy or a properly managed operation, if the aim was - as it should be - to save lives.
Except...were there any suicide vests at the Bataclan, or is that a lie? One witness says they didn't have any. (Source.)

Will France be pressing ahead with its call for UN soldiers to police part of Jerusalem?
The venue where the concert was held was sold on Sept 11 after 40 years of ownership. Such timing.
If someone tries to ignore prior ownership, I smell a rat.
Post a Comment

<< Home

Thursday, November 19, 2015

I like history

I like history. Not only are stories from the past fun to read about, they can also provide insight into current events. Consider, for example, the story of the Lavon Affair.
The Lavon Affair refers to a failed Israeli covert operation, code named Operation Susannah, conducted in Egypt in the Summer of 1954. As part of the false flag operation,[1] a group of Egyptian Jews were recruited by Israeli military intelligence to plant bombs inside Egyptian, American and British-owned civilian targets, cinemas, libraries and American educational centers. The bombs were timed to detonate several hours after closing time. The attacks were to be blamed on the Muslim Brotherhood, Egyptian Communists, "unspecified malcontents" or "local nationalists" with the aim of creating a climate of sufficient violence and instability to induce the British government to retain its occupying troops in Egypt's Suez Canal zone.[2] The operation caused no casualties, except for operative Philip Natanson, when a bomb he was taking to place in a movie theater ignited prematurely in his pocket; for two members of the cell who committed suicide after being captured; and for two operatives who were tried, convicted and executed by Egypt.

The operation ultimately became known as the Lavon Affair after the Israeli defense minister Pinhas Lavon was forced to resign as a consequence of the incident. Before Lavon's resignation, the incident had been euphemistically referred to in Israel as the "Unfortunate Affair" or "The Bad Business" (Hebrew: העסק הביש‎, HaEsek HaBish). After Israel publicly denied any involvement in the incident for 51 years, the surviving agents were officially honored in 2005 by being awarded certificates of appreciation by Israeli President Moshe Katzav.
Isn't history fun?
Anyone expecting change well I have a bridge of the river denial to sell you. That's a great catch;) Thanks
Two interesting items via MoA about The Double Identity of an "Anti-Semitic" Commenter and Turkey's history with ISIS. Also entertaining is Soviet espionage history.
Standard procedure, from Josephus' day to Queen Victoria's.
"History is the only science".
Pick-up an AK-47, join a group of militants, enjoy instant respect, fear, and regularly reap bounty. Group is gunned down with billions of advanced military weaponry, making weapons stock holders happy.

Bored, a new group springs up when the next wave of desperate middle easternyouth pick-up an AK-47, join a group of like minded friends, enjoy instant respect, fear, and regularly reap bounty.

Stir, wash, rinse, repeat.

There is no..."only one ISIS". There is world wide credit card debt that results in each debtor paying DOUBLE for any purchase they make on a credit card if they cannot immediately pay down the credit care purchase. That world wide credit card debt derails humans from truly helping each other.

That 19 dollars a person sends to a non-profit of their choice every month actually costs them 38 dollars a month if they have ongoing credit card debt.

In the middle east It's just easier to pick up an AK-47 than try and create local economies when existing credit card debt doubles the cost of every credit card purchase made by a credit card debtor.
Post a Comment

<< Home

Trump up?

After Paris, Trump became more popular. Mainstream pundits are befuddled, but they ought not be. This paragraph tells us much...
“Trump makes up for his shortcomings with his force of personality,” said one Republican strategist in New Hampshire who did not want to be identified but is not working for any of Trump’s presidential rivals. “I don’t think that, on the global stage, you beat [Russian President Vladimir] Putin by offering up your own Putin, in terms of macho charisma. It’s far more involved than that.”
"Beat Putin"...?

My god. What nonsense. Why the hell should anyone be thinking in terms of beating Putin at this stage of the game? Putin is not our enemy.

Putin did not attack innocents in Paris. ISIS did. Putin has been bombing the hell out of ISIS, while we have have spent more than year merely pretending to be against ISIS.

It's 2003 all over again: After a terror strike, the neocons think that they can transform our righteous anger into a war fever -- with America blundering into battle against someone who had no link to the terror event.

The thing is, a trick of that sort is harder to pull off the second time. In spite of a massive propaganda campaign, millions of Americans know that we are being hornswoggled. I wish I could say that a majority of America can see the truth, but most Americans are too busy thinking about the new Star Wars movie to pay attention to events in the Middle East. Nevertheless, a large number of people do understand that we are being lied to, just as we were lied to in the run up to the Iraq invasion.

Trump, like it or not, is the only candidate (Republican or Democrat) telling the truth -- hence, his bump in popularity after Paris. When he applauded Putin for attacking ISIS, did you hear a massive cry of outrage? No, you did not. Trump's logic was and is unassailable.

The enemy is not in Moscow or Damascus or Tehran. The enemy is ISIS. Russia, Iran, the Kurds, and (of course) the legitimate government of Syria are the ones who are doing actual battle against ISIS. If we want to defeat that foe, we have to befriend (at least temporarily) the enemies of our enemy.

If Syria were the only issue, I'd vote for Trump over Hillary. And you have no idea how difficult it is for me to say those words, because I have always disliked that vulgar plutocrat.

Update: On the other hand...ewwww.
Empire only persists through the cunning use of a divide and conquer strategy, wherein local, national, and international constituencies are artificially divided along emotionally-driven fault lines in order that they can never coalesce to develop an understanding of who their true enemy is: the ruling class.

Putin and the Russian Federation are currently waging a war against the shadow armies of the empire and as such they both need to be vilified accordingly lest the domestic populations of the United States and Europe become aware of the duplicity and malevolence inherent to their political leaders.

The empire is currently in a bind because people are becoming aware of the fact that although we've been claiming ISIS is the true threat, we're also refusing to partner with the Russians to annihilate said threat. People - even some of the more stubborn - are wondering if the "war of terror" is just an elaborate psy-ops campaign designed to separate them from their money and freedoms.

Putin is playing chess while the empire is playing checkers at this point.
It appears that Moon of Alabama is under some sort of attack right now.
How many Syrian refugees are in Russia?
Dunno Joseph, but they are busy with over a million refugees from the Ukraine...courtesy of US policy to overthrow elected governments with a] Terrorists, b] Not-so Neo-Nazis.

Current score is as follows:

small-j joseph - 0
S Brennan -1
Joseph, please remember that Trump and Putin share an affinity because they're both neo-fascists.

Putin is maybe the only world leader Trump praises. Trump's bond with Putin is analogous to Berlusconi's well-known friendship with Putin. All three are postmodern autocrats [that's the term I'm gonna use until I can come up w a better one].

Like you, I scorn the demonization of Putin. But it's not because Putin is better than he's portrayed. He may actually be worse, as becomes evident when you start picking apart his association with men like Dugin. It's because the demonization is hypocritical, unsophisticated and so obviously in service of a vast ulterior agenda as diabolical as any emanating from the Kremlin. In the final analysis, Russia and America closely resemble each other - ever more closely all the time.

I urge you not to succumb to the sports fan's reflex of picking sides.

Fascist? Go get yourself a dictionary.

With all that has been done by the last two presidents to bring about a police state...and all you do is is throw garbage at a populist, who for all his silly proposed laws, which have no chance of being enacted, Trump is the only guy with a ME policy that is NOT from the neocon* template, not completely insane, hence Putin's support.

BTW, I do not consider Putin's actions to be anything more than reasonable self-defense of country and assets. However, people who believe as you do WILL turn Russian into a dangerous foe, by shoving Russia into the awaiting arms of China. If anybody is an enemy of the United States, it's the people who have supported Clinton/Bush's/Obama's naked aggression toward the Russians.

I wish all these armchair warriors would study a world map and study some history, because their profound ignorance of both is killing this country.

*The nation's true fascist organinzation
Post a Comment

<< Home

Wednesday, November 18, 2015


Now that Trump has gone off the neocon reservation, the Republican establishment has fixed on Marco Rubio.
Rubio further differentiated himself from Trump and “America Firsters” in a Weekly Standard feature article inauspiciously titled, “The Republican Obama.” In an interview for the story, Rubio stakes out a decidedly neoconservative position on the increasingly failed state of Libya. According to Rubio, the bloody chaos is not a result of the vacuum created by intervention, but because President Obama failed to “help quickly bring the civil war to a decisive conclusion.”

In other words, Obama’s intervention did not go far enough.
In October, The Wall Street Journal detailed Rubio’s ever-hardening line on Putin which is, by subtle extension, an attack on Trump’s foreign policy bona fides. Rubio said, “We are barreling toward a second Cold War, and strong American leadership is the only force capable of ensuring that peace and security once again prevail,” and promised that “under my administration, there will be no pleading for meetings with Vladimir Putin. He will be treated as the gangster and thug that he is. And yes, I stand by that phrasing.”
Rubio's campaign slogan is "A new American Century." Sound familiar...?
Yes, Rubio has gone “Full-Neocon” and the echoes of grand designs past don’t stop with his blatant campaign slogan. On Nov. 5, Rubio gave a sweeping speech in New Hampshire outlining his defense policies that could, according to an expert at the Cato Institute, add upwards of $1 trillion dollars on top of current budget projections over the next decade.

It was that extra trillion dollars that GOP hopeful Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, attacked as “not conservative” in the FOX Business Debate. Rubio responded predictably by labeling Paul as an “isolationist.”

But Sen. Paul highlighted the key difference between the Tea Party and Rubio, who is not a real conservative in the fiscal sense. Rather, Rubio is a neoconservative armed with global aspirations and a staggering military-industrial wish-list to boot.
Basically, Rubio wants us to believe that the Department of Defense needs a massive build-up. It seems that our poor, under-funded military still uses bi-planes and muskets and muzzle-loading cannons.

The afore-linked article details the shadowy network of PACs pushing the Gospel According to St. Marco. Much of the big, big money is now going to Rubio -- Sheldon Adelson money, Paul Singer money, Norman Braman money. Neocon billionaires hope to buy the election.
This is Marco’s moment. Like the neoconservative brand he has franchised, Rubio has been waiting for the catalyzing event he can leverage into to transformative program to “rebuild” the world’s largest military and extend its already global-spanning reach.
That would be Paris. And if Paris doesn't do the job, something worse may happen.

On a personal level, Rubio is the most robotic candidate I've ever seen. He's about as real as Pinocchio was before the Blue Fairy showed up. Puppet pols of this sort always remind me of the old Mossad motto (which we learned about from Victor Ostrovsky): "An honest politician is one who, when bought, stays bought."

A large portion of the Republican electorate sees Rubio the same way I do. I'm talking about the libertarian faction and the "old school" conservatives. The argot they use may differ from yours and mine, but -- bottom line -- they don't much care for the neocons and their marionettes.

Alas, what alternative will they have in the general election?

Right now, Hillary leads Rubio in a head-to-head matchup, at least according to one poll. Interestingly, the same poll gives Bernie Sanders an even larger lead.

Obviously, I consider Hillary Clinton preferable to Rubio. I don't think she wants war; like Obama, she will head down the "neocon lite" path, using every trick short of war. And she will not engage in massive deficit spending to increase our already-bloated military. That's important, and don't pretend otherwise.

But the choice between Rubio and Clinton will be bitter. Either way, we're going to get burned: It's just a question of how much of your skin is going to get melted off.

The people hunger for a real alternative to the neo-consensus. Maybe Jim Webb really will run as an independent? And maybe he'll take Trump's lesson in the virtues of blunt talk?

By the way: Shortly after the 2012 election, I wrote this:
My prediction: 2016 will come down to a battle between Hillary Clinton and Marco Rubio. In that match-up, Rubio has the advantage.
That old piece offers other predictions, most of which turned out to be hilariously wrong. Don't read those parts, okay?
While it's rare for me to agree with you, I wish Jim Webb well, however, in the USA,both parties [D] & [R] are resolutely united...THERE SHALL BE NO 3R PARTY. As such, Jim Webb doesn't have a prayer of getting on the ballot...and if that were not enough, he's facing a complete blacklisting by the media who refused to even mention that he was running when talking about the Democratic slate.

That is sad, Jim Webb is without a doubt the most qualified, the man who has unerringly called shots and had the balls drop as predicted...the man who has unflinchingly stood by his nation through thick and thin. Those qualities, which the gods reserve for history's most tragic heroes are Jim's in spades, but they are also the qualities most despised by the ruling elites and their sycophantic minions.

My Call; Hillary vs Trump...with the proviso that Trump isn't assassinated by those who prefer puppets without any populist notions.
Hillary Clinton vs Donald Trump. Massive, Massive voter turnout and in a never before seen twist, voters are in tears over who to vote for because they love both candidates so much.
Alessandro, I have to admit...if that were the match-up, and if Syria/ISIS/Iran were the sole issue, I'd have to vote Trump.

And believe me, I never thought I'd say that!

Of course, there ARE other issues.
Post a Comment

<< Home

The mastermind and the motive

Abdelhamid Abaaoud, the presumed mastermind of the Paris attacks, may have been killed in a shootout. This report says that two were killed in a raid in Saint Denis and seven arrested; the report does not state that Abaaoud was among those killed.

Some have been wondering whether Abaaoud had "friends" within the intelligence agencies of the west. Justin Raimondo examines the initial evidence here. I'm not persuaded, but neither am I dismissive.
To begin with, the alleged mastermind, 28-year-old Belgium-born Abdel Hamid Abaaoud, seems to have led a charmed life. A high-profile jihadi, commander of the Islamic State forces at Deir-al-Zor, and their major European recruiter, he has been involved in several terrorist operations in Europe, including the incident on a train bound for Paris foiled by three Americans, as well as an attack on a church in a Parisian suburb, both earlier this year. He is the star of several Islamic State videos, including one that shows him dragging corpses tied to the back of a truck. He even did an interview with Dabiq, the official Islamic State magazine, in which Abaaoud boasted that he returned to Belgium right under the noses of the authorities...
The origins of Dabiq are murky, but that's a topic for another time. Right now, the important thing to note is that Abaaoud seems to have gotten out of one close shave after another.
“After the raid on the safe house,” he told Dabiq, “they figured out that I had been with the brothers and that we had been planning operations together. So they gathered intelligence agents from all over the world – from Europe and America – in order to detain me. I was able to leave and come to Syria despite being chased after by so many intelligence agencies. All this proves that a Muslim should not fear the bloated image of the crusader intelligence.”

Incompetence on the part of the “crusaders”– or does Abaaoud have a guardian angel sitting on his shoulder?

The failure to nab Abaaoud in Greece, in spire of the tremendous resources utilized to that end, is something of a mystery. As the Guardian reported:

“Asked if the suspected leader remained on the run after two people were arrested in Athens on Saturday in connection with the Belgian investigation, Koen Geens, the justice minister, told VRT television: ‘That is indeed the case. Last night’s arrests did not succeed in nabbing the right person. We are still actively looking for him and I presume we will succeed,’ he added.”

Or, as Abaaoud put it to Dabiq:

“Allah blinded their vision... My name and picture were all over the news yet I was able to stay in their homeland, plan operations against them, and leave safely when doing so became necessary.”
The NYT offers more background:
Like many of the jihadists who have carried out attacks in Europe, including the brothers who attacked the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in January, Mr. Abaaoud showed far more interest in thievery and drugs when he was a young man than in Islam, particularly the highly disciplined, self-sacrificing Salafi strain favored by many militants.

Nor was his family impoverished. His father, Omar, owned a clothing store off the market square in Molenbeek, a borough of Brussels, and the family lived nearby in a spacious if shabby corner home on Rue de l’Avenir — Future Street — near the local police station.

Despite his subsequent denunciations of the mistreatment suffered by Muslims in Europe, he enjoyed privileges available to few immigrants, including admission to an exclusive Catholic school, Collège Saint-Pierre d’Uccle, in an upscale residential district of Brussels.

He was given a place as a first-year student in the secondary school but stayed only one year. An assistant to Saint-Pierre’s director, who declined to give her name, said he had apparently flunked out. Others say he was dismissed for poor behavior.

He then drifted into a group of friends in Molenbeek who engaged in various petty crimes. Among his friends were Ibrahim and Salah Abdeslam, two brothers who, like Mr. Abaaoud, lived just a few blocks away and are now at the center of the investigation into the Paris attacks.
The man was a complete ne'er-do-well and a drug thug. Did he really "get religion"?

By the way: If you want to read an intriguing account of how the CIA infiltrates the jihad underground, see this story from 2014, which touches on the lingering al-Awlaki mystery. The piece, which came to my attention only just now, may offer some additional insights into the Abaaoud affair.

The reason why. Nothing done by the Parisian terrorists benefited ISIS or Al Qaeda, so why did they commit a seemingly senseless act? Even if you posit a conspiracy theory of the Paris incident -- and right now, I'm at least semi-open to such ideas -- you still have to consider the fact that those men were willing to die for their cause. Someone told them: "If you do this, X will happen."

Solve for X. That's our puzzle for today.

So far, the only argument I've seen that makes any sense is presented here. Basically, the argument comes to this: The jihadists intend to create an anti-Muslim backlash in western societies, because alienated young Muslims are more likely to join the jihadist forces.
Altogether, these findings suggest "terror groups may try to provoke a backlash against their own ethnic or religious group in the targeted country, in order to halt the assimilation of Muslim adherents into Western society," the researchers conclude.

Indeed, from ISIS's point of view, that's an intelligent long-term strategy, as fully Westernized Muslims are likely to be far less responsive to their abhorrent ideology.
If this is true -- and I am persuaded that it is -- then the Republican response to Paris has aided ISIS immensely.

John Kasich, a man for whom I once had some respect, has argued for a government agency designed to promote "Judeo-Christian values" in the Middle East and elsewhere. This lunatic proposal, which would have horrified this country's founders, will convert exactly no-one while pressing all sorts of paranoia buttons throughout the world: "Hi, I'm Uncle Sam. I'm here to entice your kids away from your religion."

Is ISIS paying Kasich? Probably not, although the investment would be shrewd.

Airstrikes. As one might have predicted, the French are sending warplanes into Raqqa, the ISIS city-state -- but they aren't doing much harm to ISIS. Compared to the Russian strikes, which have inflicted serious damage, the French sorties appear to be mostly for show.

Nothing done by "the west" has actually hurt ISIS in Syria.
Kasich is going to lose anyway, so that investment would be wasted.
"John Kasich, a man for whom I once had some respect, has argued for a government agency designed to promote "Judeo-Christian values" in the Middle East and elsewhere. This lunatic proposal, which would have horrified this country's founders, will convert exactly no-one while pressing all sorts of paranoia buttons throughout the world: "Hi, I'm Uncle Sam. I'm here to entice your kids away from your religion."

Amen and Amen! When I saw this, I nearly fell outta my chair! We are not a Christian Theocracy, we are a constitutional Republic. This smacks of a First Amendment violation up the yang yang...

Kasich won't be around long.


The "west" isn't going to hurt ISIS because ISIS is just another proxy army whose mission - for the time being - is to destabilize Syria so that the government can be toppled and replaced with yet another puppet of the west.

The attacks in Paris achieve several goals as far as I can tell:

1) They ingrain in the French public's mind that refugees from Syria are terrorists who should be feared and ostracized from society.
2) They provide a justification for the passage of France's version of the USA Patriot Act.
3) They increase the likelihood that a right-wing authoritarian government will rise to power.
4) They provide a pretext for French military involvement in Syria under the aegis of fighting terror, when they'll really be about smashing Syrian infrastructure and supporting the same terrorists who allegedly attacked Paris.

Pretty brilliant in a sadistic way.
James, were those the goals in the minds of the men (and one woman, it seems) who gave their lives to do this thing? If not, what were they told and what did they believe?
Have you ever seen the movie "Clean Skin" on Netflix? It does a surprisingly good job of painting an admittedly fictional portrait of how the state actually uses terrorism and terrorist patsies to accomplish its goals, all the while keeping the vast majority of both the public and the law enforcement community tasked with preventing terrorism none the wiser. I highly recommend this as a sort of introductory level course in imagining the level of sophistication, smoke screening, and subterfuge necessary to maintain the charade that is the War on (of, really) Terror.

As for those who died in this Paris operation, I would imagine that any who did sacrifice their lives were possibly true believers who were recruited by Abdelhamid Abaaoud or some other agent of the state. Notice the professional shooters in these attacks did not wear explosive vests; they all escaped. And while the media is attempting to tell us that those killed in the shoot-out this morning were the shooters who got away, we really have no way of knowing that. Regardless, dead men (and women) tell no tales and loose ends represent a very real threat to these operations, I would imagine.

I can't claim to understand how the deep state military protects its operations, but the spate of terrorist attacks to which society has been subjected in my lifetime all seem to smack of state involvement upon closer inspection, and this Paris situation is no different in that regard. Cui bono, Joseph.
"Nothing done by the Parisian terrorists benefited ISIS or Al Qaeda..." Perhaps these people were true believers, radical Salafists of the sort that are being created all over the world in Saudi-funded madrassahs and mosques. As such, they would certainly be aware, as some westerners believe, that ISIS and Al Qaeda are both creations of western intelligence services. Your synopsis above of the link marked "here" makes sense: if the terrorists were true Takfiris, then it is God's will that they kill not only Christians, Jews, and other assorted infidels, but also Muslims who are not adherents of their particular Saudi-originated sect, and radicalizing other Muslims in the process is a good thing.

Re French military inefficiency: according to Global Research (credible source?), the first French bombing attack on Raqqa damaged "a sports stadium, museum, an equestrian center and several administration buildings." The French attacks in Syria are also against international law, just like their attacks in Libya and those of the US in both places.

It could just be as simple as Columbine, a bunch of young men who are losers, finding a convenient excuse to kill people. For such people, the Saudi's Wahhabism is a flame to these soulless moths.

Now what it gets used for is something else entirely....

But...I think Putin put the west back into "check" by embracing France as tightly as any boa-constrictor, so as to prevent them from becoming a canard by which the west could stir the their dying embers back to life in Syria.
James, so what you're saying is this: As the terrorists took bullets from the Parisian cops, as they lay dying in the street with their life's blood draining away, the last thoughts in their minds were: "At least I died to justify a French version of the USA Patriot Act."


You think THAT was what motivated them?
Regardless of whether they were shot by police or blew themselves up, any of these terrorists who actually died during this attack would have needed to believe they were fighting for their cause, hence the term "true believers". I'm saying that whoever planned and carried out this attack - including providing logistics, weapons, getaway routes, fake IDs, official cover, etc. - understood why they were doing it, which is what I explained in my response.

How you managed to interpret what I wrote to mean what you replied is beyond me.
You think THAT was what motivated them?
posted by Blogger Joseph : 4:05 PM

True believers died for whatever their cause was but that USA Patriot Act thing might of what their handlers had in mind. Oh and defense spending. Ka-Ching$$
One person run into one of the terrorists at a public toilet near the stadium, short time before he blew himself off.
The person observed, that the man was sweating heavily and grasping at the sink, like feeling very sick.
Second, in one of the appartements searched in Paris they found seringas and other stuff, which they don't know if it was used for drugging or for bomb-making.
So how do we really know that Russia and Putin are telling the truth when they say they are bombing ISIS? Are there any independent reports outside of Russian sources? Western sources saying exactly opposite. I find neither side trustworthy. Is Putin knows something about who is funding ISIS then why doesn't he just say it and let the world know? He is apparently playing games too.
Perhaps Abdelhamid Abaaoud is simply the latest Lee Harvey Oswald.

Also, Thierry Meyssan spins a fascinating web:
Listen everyone.

Please have a look at the glossy magazine supposedly published by Isis (Daesh) in English. You can get it online here, distributed by the pro-Israeli Clarion Project. They're the guys who made the "Third Jihad" film and you can guess what memes they push.

The magazine is called Dabiq. That's a place in Syria that's big in Islamic eschatology.

Said Islamic eschatology also features the second coming of Jesus.

The zine reminds me very much of Inspire, which is supposedly put out by Al Qaeda but which the Iranian government opines is actually produced by the CIA.

You know those photos that occasionally make the big western media, said to derive from unknown sources (so why publish them?), showing Arab toddlers wearing suicide belts, which they are said (also by unspecified sources) to have been encouraged to wear as part of the festivities at an Arab wedding?


How many nanoseconds of clear thought does it take to realise that no-one anywhere in the world, in any culture, ever does anything like that?

Don't forget that last month France was mooting at the UN Security Council the (Palestinian) idea that UN soldiers should help guard the Haram al-Sharif (Temple Mount) in al-Quds (Jerusalem).

Now look what's happened.

D'you think they're still going to espouse such an idea?

The Norwegian Labour Party's foreign affairs guy spoke at Utoya in Norway about the divestment of Norwegian state money from Israel. Then what happened? Anders Breivik went there and murdered most of the next generation of Norwegian Labour Party leaders, that's what.

Do you think the divestment's going to happen now?

Lest anyone think Norwegian divestment would be insigificant, please be aware that the Norwegian oil funds are some of the biggest sovereign investment funds in the world, easily comparable to the Saudi one.

Then think some about BDS (boycott divestment sanctions) and the idea of "red lines".

Then recall Victor Ostrovksy's info about the Zionist terror network in western countries.

Was the choice of a "death metal" concert someone's idea of a sick joke? It actually may have been. There are some fucking sick memes being pushed at a high level at the moment. Game of Thrones fans have got themselves a real-life 'red wedding'.

OK fellow free-thinkers who don't jump to attention to believe The Man, let's get going.

Music concert.


Venue owner?

Venue manager?

Let's not get bogged down by details of what the fucking French authorities say they found, whether syringes or a Koran or a picture of the Eiffel Tower with a missile drawn on it.
@James - Daesh's reach already extends much further than Syria.
@Makarov - "The French attacks in Syria are also against international law".

They would say they are in self-defence, which is legal under the UN Charter.

This is just FYI. I'm not saying they are justified.

The Russian action in Syria is certainly legal, being at the request of the Syrian government.
Which countries ISIS-supporters are tweeting from ?
Nice graph ->

Post a Comment

<< Home

Tuesday, November 17, 2015


Shasta Red Tiki Punch + cheap vodka + Bruckner's third symphony.

I have to warn you that at that end of the second movement, you do witness the Crucifixion. So be prepared for that. It gets heavy.

A world gone mad

It's always weird, but it's seldom this weird.

The Texas gun controller. Texas state legislator Tony Dale, beloved of the NRA, says that we can't allow Syrian refugees into this country because it would be too easy for them to get guns. No matter where you stand on gun control, this shit is funny.
“While the Paris attackers used suicide vests and grenades,” Dale wrote, “it is clear that firearms also killed a large number of innocent victims. Can you imagine a scenario were a refugees is admitted to the United States, is provided with federal cash payments and other assistance, obtains a drivers license and purchases a weapon and executes an attack?”
"A scenario were a refugees" -- behold the Texas school system at work!

What I want to know, Tonykins, is how refugees in France -- socialist, God-hatin', gun-controllin' France -- got automatic weaponry and grenades? (And why am I the only one who keeps asking that question?)

By the way: 750,000 refugees (of one sort or another) have been resettled in the US since the World Trade Center attacks, and not a one of them has been involved in domestic terrorism. Granted, two Iraqi refugees were arrested for aiding Al Qaeda back home -- but according to David Petraeus, those guys are now supposed to be our pals.

Speaking of refugees: This tweet speaks volumes...

Josh Rogin says that the big winner of the Paris attacks was Bashar Assad. This is a very carefully-written, very weasel-worded piece, insofar as it speaks highly of the anti-Assad rebels without telling you that ISIS and Al Qaeda are fully in charge of the rebellion in Syria, and will certainly take power if Assad goes. Rogin's article is carefully designed to give ill-informed readers the impression that Assad was somehow behind the terror in France:
Secretary of State John Kerry said Saturday what most Syrian opposition figures say repeatedly to anyone who will listen: Assad is the magnet for the terrorists, and Syria will never be free from terror until Assad is out of power.
Kerry pointed out that over 300,000 have died in Syria, the vast majority at the hands of the Assad regime. He mentioned the barrel bombs, the torture of civilians in custody, the use of chemical weapons, all by Assad’s forces. Only if Assad steps aside can the world join together to fight against the Islamic State, he said.
Either Rogin or Kerry is lying here. Or both. This much is certain: Quite a few fibs have been packed into one tiny suitcase of a paragraph.

If you trace the claim that Assad caused "the vast majority" of Syrian civil war deaths, you'll find that the source is always some neocon group like WINEP. The atrocities against civilians are pretty much all committed by ISIS and al Qaeda. If Assad is killing lots and lots of ISIS and Al Qaeda warriors, I can only say "Bravo!": That's what he damned well ought to be doing, and we should be helping him do it. (Here's a fun research project: How many combatant deaths did Abraham Lincoln preside over during our civil war?)

It has now been established beyond reasonable argument that the rebels (Davie Petraeus' bestest buds) were the ones behind the chemical attacks.

The "proof" of Assad's torture comes from a dubious source code-named Ceasar, also known as Curveball II. (Besides, does the United States have any moral standing to talk about torture after what our CIA has done?)

Here's the truth about the barrel bombs.
Yet, it seems likely this clumsy, improvised weapon – supposedly dropped from helicopters – would be far less lethal than rocket-propelled bombs delivered from afar by jet planes or drones, the approach favored by the U.S. government and its “allies.”

Civilians would have a much better chance to seek safety in a bomb shelter before some “barrel bomb” is shoved out the door of a helicopter than when a sophisticated U.S.-made bomb arrives with little or no warning, as apparently happened to the victims of that wedding in Yemen.

And that is not to mention the U.S. bombs that involve depleted uranium, napalm, phosphorous and cluster munitions, which present other humanitarian concerns. However, while U.S.-assisted or U.S.-directed slaughters of civilians attract little attention in the mainstream U.S. media, there are endless denunciations of the Syrian government’s “barrel bombs.”

The propaganda drumbeat is such that the American people are told that they must support “regime change” in Syria even if it risks opening the gates of Damascus to a victory by the Islamic State and Al Qaeda terrorists.
Rogin, Kerry: I don't mean to seem impolite, but go fuck yourselves. Just a couple of goddamned hypocrites, both of you.

Speaking of death-from-above...

Destroying history. Remember how outraged you felt when you read about what ISIS is doing to precious historical sites in Syria? Why are you not similarly outraged to learn that we are doing the exact same thing in Yemen?

The Great Unspeakable Truth about terror. Why is it never permissible for anyone in this country to state the fact that our Saudi "friends" are the ones who funded ISIS and nurtured its creation?
In December 2009, Hillary Clinton noted in a confidential diplomatic memo that “donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide.” In October 2014, Joe Biden told students at Harvard’s Kennedy School that “the Saudis, the emirates, etc. … were so determined to take down [Syrian President Bashar al-] Assad and essentially have a proxy Sunni-Shia war … [that] they poured hundreds of millions of dollars and tens of thousands of tons of military weapons into anyone who would fight against Assad except the people who were being supplied were Al Nusra and Al Qaeda.”

Just last month, a New York Times editorial complained that Saudis, Qataris and Kuwaitis were continuing to funnel donations not only to Al Qaeda but to Islamic State as well.

Yet despite countless promises to shut down such funding, the spigots have remained wide open. The U.S. has not only acquiesced in such activities, moreover, but has actively participated in them. In June 2012, the Times wrote that the C.I.A. was working with the Muslim Brotherhood to channel Turkish, Saudi and Qatari-supplied arms to anti-Assad rebels.

Two months later, the Defense Intelligence Agency reported that Al Qaeda, Salafists and the Muslim Brotherhood dominated the Syrian rebel movement, that their goal was to establish a “Salafist principality in eastern Syria” where Islamic State’s caliphate is now located, and that this is “exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition” – i.e. the West, Gulf states, and Turkey – “want in order to isolate the Syrian regime.”

More recently, the Obama administration made no objection when the Saudis supplied Al Nusra, Al Qaeda’s official Syrian affiliate, with high-tech TOW missiles in support of its offensive in Syria’s northern Idlib province.
All quite true. Yet these facts are never allowed to enter into our national conversation on terrorism.
Not to make light of Paris but here's Amerikas killer squad.

Nothing changes, double down

More false flag

Actually France is one of the most liberal places in Europe in terms of the gun laws, in that most people who want guns can get them. As to autonatic assault weapons, its just a case of the having having the money and some connections, like pretty much everything, everywhere. Contrast Britain, where even the cops seldom carry guns.
Jo6pac, spot on. I am wary of people screaming "false flag", but I am starting to think there are no other kinds of "terror" attacks anymore (well, except possibly in middle eastern and African nations, where westerners don't hear about or don't care about the attacks). As to where the guns and bombs came from........intelligence agencies have plenty of those to supply their assets with. I would assume that is the case in the Paris attacks as well.

Joseph, I've been posting your Saudi Arabia graphic on FB, hope you don't mind (I also link to your post).

Nice to see from which countries came the financing of terror.

FAZ is a conservative media.
Post a Comment

<< Home

Monday, November 16, 2015

How much of this is going on right now?

I caught a ten minute chunk of CNN earlier this evening, while out and about. A parade of Serious Looking Talking Heads (SLTHs) informed us that the Paris attacks were planned "in Syria" and that this whole operation should somehow be blamed on Syria. Syria. Terror. Terror. Syria. Syrian terrorists. Terran Syriaists.

The SLTHs never actually came right out and said "Blame Assad," but such was the impression they strove to convey. I heard lots of suspiciously careful wording. Nobody made the obvious point that Assad and ISIS are enemies. The SLTH brigade were trading on the American public's ignorance as to who is on which side in that part of the world.

I half expected these SLTHs to lapse into a Walter Brennan impersonation: They's all MOOslims. That's all you need to know. Mooslims is EEEvil, I tells yuh.

Question: Have you noticed this sort of commentary as you flip through the cable news channels?

Second question: Isn't this sort of thing awfully reminiscent of the media misinformation campaign which convinced so much of the American public that Saddam did 9/11?
There was also an ISIS video threatening the US if they bombed in Syrria. The video was apparently a 2 camera gig and even included one of the cameras set on an artistic telephoto shot to throw out the background. Kind of strange to bother to go to the trouble to set the camera back a farther distance just to get that telephoto effect as it then means a sophisticated sound recording had to be done involving wireless mikes and possibly even a switcher to edit between the angles.
Alessandro, maybe they used an ND filter to decrease depth of field. That's what I would have done.

Yeah, ISIS videos are odd -- whoever makes them seems to have spent a lot of time watching instructional videos by Film Riot and DSLR Film Noob. "Achmed, let's shoot the next beheading at 24fps for that film look. Also, would it kill you to stop down a bit to avoid blowing out the highlights?"
"planned "in Syria" "
This was first used by Hollande's speech, shortly after the assault.
Spiegel Online keeps repeating the phrasing ever since.
These "ISIS" videos which are always - ALWAYS - found by Rita Katz at SITE Intelligence are way too overproduced to be even remotely believable. How come their uniforms always look brand new? How come the corporate media is always happy to broadcast their demands? Whose agenda is really being advanced by these supposedly organic terrorist armies?

I think you probably know the answer, but honestly addressing it might force you to re-think some of your more obstinate positions regarding other significant terrorist attacks perpetrated against innocent civilians in recent years.
To me the most outrageous thing is that the so called mastermind of the attack got 5 tries to accomplish the damage of last Friday. All of them this year aLone. He even have videos bragging about the stuff he did. They know about him and yet they can't capture him. With all those alphabet agencies over inflating their capabilities and how they know everything how could that happens. Shouldn't the priority before bombarding to examine the shortcomings of the intelligence. Don't get me wrong I want Isis to be blown off the planet but I have to ask who is getting the intelligence community that they miss on this one
Sorry to chime in here without doing all the research first, but wasn't there a woman who did these videos for Mossad and was outed as the source for most of the fake beheadings videos? Seems to be a fit.
We have to admit that the fake terrorist videos which originate in the Mideast are somewhat improved since the days of videos which contained Fat Osama Bin Laden, Skinny Osama, Right-handed Osama, Left-handed Osama, Osama flaunting bling, which no Salafist would do, etc.
Assad has been the only obstacle to turning all of Syria into heaps of uninhabitable rubble of the sort that now predominates in Libya, much of Iraq, Yemen, eastern Ukraine, and Gaza, although most of the country has been successfully turned into rubble. The Empire of Chaos still dreams of extending chaos over the rest of Syria then Lebanon and Iran; Moloch demands it. The lie factories that are adjuncts to the Empire aren't going to stop.
Post a Comment

<< Home

Terrorist identification

We're seeing a hideous amount of war propaganda. The neocons are partying like it's 2003.

ISIS threatens to take the war to Washington DC and to the rest of Europe. These threats make no sense from a tactical standpoint, so why make them? (In a time of hysteria, few ask "Cui bono?")

I was under the impression that the main difference between ISIS and Al Qaeda concerned the question of where to fight. ISIS has concentrated on acquiring a specific piece of real estate in Syria where they could establish a caliphate, while Al Qaeda focused on toppling "the far enemy" -- the United States. Viewed in that light, 9/11 made a certain strategic sense: Having helped to bankrupt the USSR in Afghanistan, Bin Laden thought that he could bring similar financial pain to the other superpower.

But that goal is not the goal of ISIS. Like Lex Luthor in the first Superman movie, ISIS wants land. So why would ISIS fight outside of the Middle East?

Further questions: If ISIS is now following the Al Qaeda game plan, what substantive issue separates the two groups? Should we still even speak of two groups? And if they have become, de facto, one and the same, then how do we respond to David Petraeus' suggestion that we should join forces with Al Qaeda?

The way to do it. It's pretty obvious, now, that Obama is being mousetrapped into a war intended to unseat Assad under the pretext of fighting ISIS. This outcome is what the neocons want and expect -- hence, all of the war propaganda.

It's also obvious that the only way Obama can escape this mousetrap is to announce a new strategy: Working with Putin and Assad to destroy ISIS. The American people will buy that. The left will accept this, and so will the Trump faction of the GOP. The neocons, of course, will go effing nuts.

But what alternative does Obama have? The refugee crisis has demonstrated the killing flaw in the neocon plan to use a proxy army of jihadi maniacs against Assad. It's time to give up that mad goal and clean up the mess we made.

The way NOT to do it. Obama has started to bomb the ISIS oil infrastructure. Until just today, the bombing campaign has concentrated on oil production facilities (which are owned by the rightful government of Syria), not on the trucks delivering the product.

I have seen no indication that Obama intends to inflict any pain on the buyers of the oil. Until he does so, we must assume that he isn't serious.

The CIA's strange statement. John Brennan said something intriguing:
CIA Director John Brennan said on Monday that officials had "strategic warning" about the terrorist attacks in Paris that claimed the lives of more than 130 and injured hundreds more, also saying that Islamic State likely has more operations in the pipeline.

"It’s not a surprise this attack was carried out, from the standpoint of we did have strategic warning," Brennan said at a Center for Strategic & International Studies forum. "We knew that these plans or plotting by ISIL was underway looking at Europe in particular as a venue for carrying out these attacks."

Brennan did not assert that the CIA or the West more broadly had specific indications about the shootings and suicide bombings in Paris, but he did warn that the Friday attacks were not likely a "one-off event."
"Strategic warning"? What does that mean? Wasn't it just a day or two ago when we all heard that the Paris attacks came as a complete surprise?

I'm reminded of Flight 9268. First, Brennan said that there was zero indication of that a terror attack in the works. Later, we heard (courtesy of our Israeli friends) that there was "chatter" indicating that something big was in the works. 

Papers, please. There's a lot of talk about identifying the terrorists by their passports and other identification: For example, see this story. Interestingly, two of the men carried false Turkish passports.

We learn here that whenever the jihadis would overrun a Syrian town, one of their first tasks was to commandeer the offices which issued official documentation. Blank documents can be filled out in any way one chooses.
The documents, on sale for around $2,000, would help an asylum claim in Europe.

The forger who sold us the papers, said that they are being used by ISIS fanatics to travel undetected across borders into Europe hidden among tens of thousands of genuine refugees fleeing the terror and destruction.

Once in Europe they can set up sleeper cells or live freely under a new identity without facing the consequences of their brutal past actions.

ISIS fighters are among the people going to Europe in this way. They are going to Europe to wait for the right time to become a fighter for ISIS again

As the forger chillingly put it: 'ISIS fighters are among the people going to Europe in this way. They are going to wait for the right time to become a fighter for ISIS again.'
At this stage, it's hard to know how much of what we are hearing is truthful and how much is war propaganda. I feel comfortable stipulating the likelihood of fake refugees carrying fake documents, but why would a terrorist carry a passport during an operation?

I can see how an ISIS fighter might hide among the refugees -- but how can ISIS terrorists do so while carrying so much lethal ordinance? Nobody has even tried to explain that poser.

Blaming Snowden.  The propagandists are making a concerted effort to blame the Paris attacks on, of all people, Ed Snowden. Greenwald:
But now we’ve entered the inevitable “U.S. Officials Say” stage of the “reporting” on the Paris attack — i.e., journalists mindlessly and uncritically repeat whatever U.S. officials whisper in their ear about what happened. So now credible news sites are regurgitating the claim that the Paris Terrorists were enabled by Snowden leaks — based on no evidence or specific proof of any kind, needless to say, but just the unverified, obviously self-serving assertions of government officials. But much of the U.S. media loves to repeat rather than scrutinize what government officials tell them to say.
Before Snowden, we are told, the terrorists stupidly used regular email unencrypted emails and telephone communications.

This assertion is, of course, nonsense: The leaders of Al Qaeda knew full well that walls had ears and computers had bugs. That's why Bin Laden used only trusted human couriers. Greenwald cites an article from early 2001 about the "sophisticated encryption" used by Bin Laden's aides.

As Marcy Wheeler reminds us, there have been "official" leaks which had the effect of terrorists that their communications were compromised -- and how those communications were compromised. Wanna see a really, really blatant example? Go here. That Daily Beast story from 2013 is pretty amazing.

It's no wonder so many wacky conspiracy stories proliferate in our society. Our newspapers brim with stories designed not to establish truth but to convey propaganda.
Given the wars in the Balkans after the disintegration of Yugoslavia, the current Ukrainian conflict and the open borders in the EU, I don't think it's difficult for terrorists to get their hands on any type of weaponry and move it where they want. Jihadists were involved in the fighting in Bosnia and Kosovo and have even turned up in Ukraine along side the Neo-Nazi mafia units.
I think it's fair to assume that any major operation would require a certain amount of chatter that would be picked up by the intelligence agencies invasive eavesdropping...of course, then they have the option of letting it go, or stopping it depending on what serves the intelligence agencies best interests. And it should be clear by now, the interests of the "host country" have to take a lower priority to these parasitic "security" enterprises.

So in this case, the CIA war to topple Assad was going badly...and they had already gotten flak for the complete FUBAR in Libya...they badly needed a reset, as Russia was just starting to get results for their efforts...clearly the killing of 244 Ruskies had no deterrent effect, quite the opposite. Time for plan B?

People say these things take months to plan, that's interesting, it's urban warfare, sans any opponent, but if we take that as a given. An operation can have a long shelf-life...only to be pulled down when needed.

One thing interest me in this, how terrorism rarely touches Israel, now perhaps the media is correct, Jews are Übermensch and we, the rest of the west, are Untermensch. But still, I find it odd that with Israel just a stones throw...ISIl & Al Nusra, aka Al Qaeda never seem to throw a punch their way.

I remember an Israeli woman, during an interview just after 911, positively glowing in schadenfreude, saying to the reporter, now they [the USA] will know how it feels and will no longer question our [Israeli] policies. Why does Wahhabism and Zionism have such an affinity for each other, with neither striking the other? Each seem to serve each others purposes? While such an odd couple is very much in the interests of an enlarged security state...is it in ours?

BTW, ISIL has done Israel a huge favor...

Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is 

powered by Blogger. 

Isn't yours?