PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2024-05-17, 16:20:03
News: Check out the Benches; a place for people to moderate their own thread and document their builds and data.
If you would like your own Bench, please PM an Admin.
Most Benches are visible only to members.

Pages: 1 ... 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 [68] 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 ... 100
Author Topic: 9/11 debate - enter at your own risk!  (Read 977806 times)

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2502
Everyman decries immorality
Is the 9/11 Scam Coming Undone?

The 9/11  Scam has come undone, past tense is appropriate in this present moment.

The scam currently coming undone is the critical mass realisation that the Al Qaeda network, and more recently the ISIS rebranded terrorist proxy armies, are NATO armed, trained, funded and supported.

Furthermore the direct, documented, and obvious support by NATO member Turkey for ISIS, is in collaboration with the Gulf State colonies operating as false flag sovereign nation FOB's for the US war machine, along with Israel.

Scarcity ideology is the past, another way has been found that leads to energy abundance in paradise, almost everywhere, for the benefit of Everyman.. forever.


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2502
Everyman decries immorality
How Israel Created the Fiend for the War on Terror

http://www.bollyn.com/#article_15568

"In reality, the War on Terror is an Israeli propaganda construct designed to deceive the West into destroying Israel’s enemies on behalf of the Zionist state."

"By continuously morphing the identity, moving the players, and carrying out acts of false-flag terrorism, the targets set for destruction by the U.S. military have moved with the virulent anti-Western Islamic “enemy” – all according to a screenplay choreographed by Israeli military intelligence - from the beginning."

Social constructionism


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_constructionism

Social constructionism or the social construction of reality (also social concept) is a theory of knowledge in sociology and communication theory that examines the development of jointly constructed understandings of the world that form the basis for shared assumptions about reality. The theory centers on the notions that human beings rationalize their experience by creating models of the social world and share and reify these models through language.[1]


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3055
David Icke is real good at making things easy to
comprehend.

What Others Dare Not Say

Henry Makow on Memorial Day

The Donald is already one of "them."




---------------------------
For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2502
Everyman decries immorality
Brexit: Necessary for saving democracy in Europe & stopping war

https://www.rt.com/op-edge/345325-brexit-saving-democracy-war/

In the last few days the British public became witness to an interesting performance: Tory MP’s calling for the resignation of their own prime minister for what they called his lies about the Brexit referendum.

Two rebellious Tory MPs, Andrew Bridgen and Nadine Dorries, said that even winning the referendum would not prevent Cameron from facing a challenge in the summer. Bridgen, in an interview to BBC, called Cameron's statements to persuade voters to remain in the EU “outrageous.”

He said the PM had in effect lost his parliamentary majority. Dorries told ITV that Cameron was not telling the nation the truth in his EU referendum campaign and that she had already submitted a letter of no confidence against the prime minister within the party.

If Tory MPs accuse Mr. Cameron of lying, then who doesn’t?

In fact, Britain still has a whole month to go before the Brexit referendum, but the British people are already the subject of outrageous intimidation by big business and big Government to stay in the European Superstate.

David Cameron and his finance minister George Osborne in their opinion piece for The Daily Telegraph are busy doing exactly that – intimidation. How else can one characterize their claim that “Britain would be worse off to the tune of £4,300 for every household every year by 2030.” Neither Mr. Cameron nor Mr. Osborne bothered to explain what was the basis for such a gloomy forecast. They simply asserted that Brexit would chop off 3.6 percent of British GDP, never explaining why it would not be 3.7 percent or 0 percent.

But there are other statistics, a lot more reliable, which show that we would have lived much better now if Edward Heath, the then prime minister of Britain, had not signed the accession Treaty in 1972, making Britain a part of the so called European Community. Since we are talking here about past mistakes, reliable statistics are much more readily available, than Mr. Cameron’s and Mr. Osborne’s outageous predictions for the year 2030. Here are the figures.

In 1980 the member states of the European Union formed the fastest growing economic region in the world, with 31 percent of world trade done through the current member states of the EU. Now, after 36 years of increasing "integration" the EU can boast of no more than 17 percent of world trade, with 10 percent of the EU’s population of the working age unemployed (24 million in 2016).

Only 6  of UK companies export to the EU and only 12 percent of our economy is traded with the EU, and this part of our economy is massively loss making. But to “enjoy” this trade, 100 percent of our economy is burdened with EU regulations and external tariffs which cost us far more than any tariffs paid by non-members of the EU! No wonder that in the last 20 years there are 27 non-EU countries whose exports of goods to the EU grew faster than the United Kingdom’s.

Now you can understand with what feelings the British people read Cameron’s words about a NO vote during the Brexit referendum. In his article, Cameron said the Leave campaign wanted to make Britain exit “not just Europe, but the single market,” creating a “do it yourself” recession.

As if the current recession had nothing to do with Britain’s decision to enter the future EU in the first place! Mr. Cameron writes that a Brexit “would mean turning our backs on the largest marketplace in the world – something Margaret Thatcher helped to create and Britain championed ever since.”

Nothing could be further from the truth about Mrs. Thatcher, who was known for her stubborn defense of British sovereignty against the European Superstate - “No, No, No” she said in Parliament! In fact, that defense was the principal reason for her replacement in the early 1990s by an intellectually challenged and supine Prime Minister John Major, who allowed Britain to be sucked into a more and more intrusive European Union and went down to the worst election defeat for 80 years.

This was not only against the will of Mrs. Thatcher, but also against the will of the late Prime Minister Winston Churchill who said about Europe: “If Britain must choose between Europe and the open sea, she must always choose the open sea. We are with Europe but not of it. We are associated but not absorbed.”

Association, not absorption – such should be the slogan of the day on British-EU relations. Unfortunately, we are long past the stage when association started transforming itself into absorption - and takeover. Let me cite an interesting historical fact illustrating that process.
In 1960 the then Prime Minister Edward Heath asked the Lord Chancellor, Lord Kilmuir, to advise him on joining the European Economic Community (as the future EU was then called). The reply was never published and it was suppressed for over 30 years as the gradual surrender of the British nation to the European State gathered speed.

In the late 1990s that letter was published. Parliament, Lord Kilmuir wrote, would no longer govern in Britain for which there “was no precedent” and the surrender of self-government to a foreign power was a serious offense that “ought to be brought out into the open.”

But Heath took no notice of the Lord Chancellor and surrendered not just our country, but also our courts. Under British Constitutional law the undermining of the constitution is a treasonous act (Norris McWhirter and I wrote a 1994 book on that). And for over 40 years the British people have been gradually deceived - by treaties signed by Ministers (under the authority of the Queen) and then effectively forced on Parliament. So, the subjugation of our laws and customs to the bureaucratic corporatist EU norms was never truly approved by the true sovereigns in a democracy - the voters!

The British State, through the utter failure of its education system to teach the foundations of the nation, the Law and democracy, had produced just the kind of ignorance among voters and MPs which made this surrender to a bureaucratic elite in Brussels so easy.

As the left moved right (under Tony Blair) and the right moved left (under John Major) these two mediocrities finally met. They agreed on a model of authoritarian corporatism which unites big business on the right with deniers of individual freedoms on the left. Neither of these had any sympathy with countries, national parliaments, cultural and racial identities or entrepreneurial businesses. Families and communities were spared even less, as something “obsolete” and “standing in the way of development.”

So, the words of Mr. Cameron about the EU as the “largest marketplace in the world” are right for corporations, but not for the people. Corporations see not peoples but only units of production and the more the peoples of the world are forced to move to where big business wants them, the cheaper are the costs of labour. That makes corporations’ profits greater, but it does not help the providers of labour and that certainly destroys communities and national economies, which become volatile and dependent on corporations. So long as national democratic governments and their borders can be bypassed and their parliaments made irrelevant, the fewer the number of politicians and bureaucrats who need to be lobbied for favorable legislation. Such convenience for lobbyists for corporatist and State socialist lobbyists goes hand in hand with the collapse in the power of the individual voter - whether he goes to the ballot box or the (now monopolistic) market place.

This disenfranchisement of the European voter is now to be extended to others – that is the secret process behind the latest stage in the creation of supranational government - the TTIP and the TPP.

The statist, authoritarian left is as active as the corporate right in this process of disenfranchisement. It helps the corporations to impose the will of supranational elites on the “stupid voters” who might not approve of, for example, massive energy taxes, or the feminist and homosexual transformation of the family.

The British people, having stood alone from 1939 to 1941 in the struggle against the corporatist fascist Euro-state (supported then as now by large US, German and British corporations) and enjoying uniquely in Europe a continuous emancipating history from Magna Carta in 1215, instinctively reject the idea of a superstate and realize they were deceived by two generations of politicians.

The result in Europe of over 60 years of the destruction of nation states, their parliaments and communities has been economically and politically catastrophic.

My own books since 1989 (see freenations.net) have warned of the return to those precise corporatist elements, both within the UK and in continental Europe, which brought Britain to war in 1939 - and Russia in 1941.

Breaking every agreement with post-Soviet Russian leaders, NATO and the European Union has pushed ever eastwards, taking over embryo democratic nation states and absorbing them into the new corporatist supranational Euro-State.

NATO/EU, having destabilized Ukraine, is pushing troops towards the Russian border setting up “defense shields” in Poland and Romania and threatening war. The British will, I sincerely expect, realize that leaving the European Union is not just about saving ourselves but about saving democracy in Europe and preventing a war.

As the former Labour Foreign Secretary, Lord Owen, has said “We have the opportunity to leave the EU before the temple comes crashing down.”

Rodney Atkinson, for RT

Rodney Atkinson is a businessman, academic and political economist, as well as an occasional adviser to Ministers and MPs. He is the founder of the freenations.net website and author of 7 books on macroeconomic policy and the EU.

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   

Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 568
I thought this was good concerning Brexit.

The moment of truth for the Brits,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFt-pRIvL9E


---------------------------
"Whatever our resources of primary energy may be in the future, we must, to be rational, obtain it without consumption of any material"  Nicola Tesla

"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle."  Edmund Burke
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3055
Quote from: Room3327
I thought this was good concerning Brexit.

The moment of truth for the Brits,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFt-pRIvL9E

An exceedingly important message brilliantly delivered!

Let us hope that his effort makes a difference.  He's
absolutely correct about our Prez and his motivations.

Hopefully, the People of Britain will seriously consider what
is at stake.


---------------------------
For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2502
Everyman decries immorality
The #StolenReferendum. How Cameron & Co have ruthlessly exploited the murder of MP Jo Cox to save their skins and the EU ‘Project’

https://southfront.org/the-stolenreferendum-how-cameron-co-have-ruthlessly-exploited-the-murder-of-mp-jo-cox-to-save-their-skins-and-the-eu-project/

Written by Nick Griffin; Originally appeared at TheSaker


Britain’s vote on Europe looks set to go down in history as the ‘Stolen Referendum’. As the Remain campaign’s ruthless exploitation of the appalling murder of MP Jo Cox continues, big business, banks and other Remain enthusiasts are increasingly confident of coming out on top in Thursday’s historic poll.

Yet such a victory will have been bought at a terrible price – a blatant triple fraud against the democratic process, perpetrated with the enthusiastic support and involvement of all three leaders of the UK’s old established governing political parties and of the overwhelmingly dominant political force in Scotland.

The damage such a consensus for deceit and election rigging will do to faith in the democratic process is incalculable.

The first great Establishment electoral fraud in the now terminally polluted campaign was in place even before the sorry farce began: In a shameless re-run of the corruption that discredited the UK’s first In/Out referendum, in 1975, the contest was drastically skewed by the fact that every household received two documents in favour of EU membership (one from the Government and one from the Europhile campaign) compared to just one from the campaign for independence.

This disparity was then reinforced by the fact that massive funding from big business meant that the pro-Brussels side was able to outspend the antis on a massive scale. In 1975, the spending disparity in favour of remain was 11 to 1; there is no reason to suppose that the gap will be any less obscene this time around.

This propaganda imbalance on its own is enough to corrupt the contest and to deny a ‘Remain’ win any real democratic legitimacy, but as the campaign got under way and polls began to show that it was not going to be the expected Remain walkover, a second trick was brought into play in the effort to ensure the ‘correct’ result:

This was the decision of the Prime Minister to extend the deadline for voter registration by a whole 48 hours after the suspiciously convenient ‘crash’ of the online registration site, just two hours before the deadline to apply for a vote.

No explanation was given as to why the lost two hours should lead to 48 hours of extra time, but it was seized on by the various taxpayer-funded organisations that were already working to maximise voter registration among the demographic groups regarded as being most likely to vote Remain, particularly ethnic minorities (Operation Black Vote) and students (HopeNotHate). The extra time saw a staggering 430,000 additional applications to vote.

This would be more than enough to swing a close contest and the very fact that it was even thought acceptable speaks volumes for the ‘win at any costs’ mentality of Cameron and Remain.

Perhaps the best way to grasp the fundamental corruption of the entire extra voters registration drive is to imagine that it had been undertaken in Northern Ireland in the 1960s, with the notorious ‘Orange Ascendancy’ regime using taxpayers’ money to fund a campaign to sign up new voters which operated only in Protestant areas.

Had such a disgraceful affront to democracy been undertaken, the left to this day would – rightly – hold it up as an example of loyalist electoral practice, of discrimination against the Catholic community and as one of the factors that turned nationalists in the Province to abandon the democratic road and turn to terrorism.

As it happens, by the start of the final week of the campaign, a succession of opinion polls, backed up by worried articles in all the pro-Remain newspapers, indicated that, despite the first two frauds, the Leavers were on course for a remarkable, perhaps even crushing, victory.

And then one of the youngest and prettiest MPs campaigning for Remain was murdered in her constituency.

Over the course of the months and years ahead, it is inevitable that a plethora of conspiracy theories will grow up around this tragic event, the CIA’s Mkultra experiments and parallels with the fictional Manchurian Candidate being the most likely to gain traction and lead to even more cynicism about the democratic process in general and the referendum result in particular.

But no such speculation is in fact required for the murder of Jo Cox or, rather, the reaction to it of Remain and of the pro-Remain broadcast media, to be the third fraud against the electorate which will lead in due course to the whole contest being discredited as the ‘Stolen Referendum’.

Future conspiracy theories notwithstanding, in the light of any fresh evidence the simplest explanation of the murder is that Thomas Mair was either genuinely mentally ill or a political fanatic who despaired of the possibility of change through the democratic or legal process.

The latter is entirely possible and, given the relentless fraud, marginalisation and demonisation directed by the entire political and media establishment against opponents of the multi-cultural project to ‘remake’ Britain, it really should not surprise its authors if their totalitarian liberalism has begun to produce a terrorist backlash among those who have lost out most from globalisation and the multicultural Utopia.

This is true whether Mair was a ‘lone wolf’ or even part of a bigger ‘right-wing extremist conspiracy’: The evil is both a reflection and an unintended consequence of the long campaign to use mass immigration to transform Britain, and especially of the Blair regime’s conscious and deliberate aim to import millions more migrants in order both to it impossible for opponents of the change to win future elections. When Labour set out to “rub their noses in it”, they should perhaps have expected to get bitten.

When Northern Ireland’s Unionists denied working class Catholics realistic hope of change through the ballot box, they unwittingly contributed to the rise of the IRA and thirty years of terrorism. Why would denying alienated working class communities in multi-cultural England realistic hope that their fears would be listened to and their aspirations met, have any different effect?

Whatever Mair’s motivation, the murder of Jo Cox has been – and continues to be – ruthlessly used to corrupt the referendum result beyond redemption. This has nothing to do with Mair and is no reflection on Jo Cox herself, but it does reflect, very badly, on Britain’s Prime Minister, the leader of the Opposition and on almost the entire Remain campaign.

The murder was used in a ‘shock and awe’ propaganda campaign by Remain and its media allies, who took the natural revulsion of all decent people against the killing and added in wave after wave of utterly unfounded allegations and insinuations that the murder was in some way the result of the Leave campaign ‘encouraging division and hatred’.

The elite’s ‘blanket guilt’ approach in this case stands in stark contrast to their opinion when Wahhabi terrorists carry out one of their all too common atrocities, in which case the liberal (including Cameron) response ranges from the increasingly absurd “nothing to do with Islam” to the slightly more nuanced “you can’t blame all Muslims for the action of a few extremists”, invariably rolled out with the help of a gaggle of ‘moderate Imams’ who duly condemn the Jihadis and assure the world that they “do not act in our name” and are in fact “anti-Islamic”.

No such treatment for Brexiteers, of course. The total exclusion of notable Leave campaigners from the TV news interviews, producing the impression that they were either in some way guilty or – almost as bad – simply didn’t care, was particularly outrageous and effective.

Meanwhile, an endless queue of Europhile bien pensants chattered angrily on TV, radio and in newspaper columns about how the murder was supposedly connected to a ‘tone’ of division and hatred created by the Leave campaign.

Here, for example, is Jonathan Freedland:

“And throughout this campaign, there has been a drumbeat denouncing ‘the Westminster elite’, castigating all politicians, along with anyone in authority or in a public position of expertise, as either a liar or the corrupt dupe of a wicked Brussels conspiracy.

“Perhaps this had nothing to do with the cruelty that deprived two children of their mother yesterday. Maybe it’s a coincidence that the killer struck at this moment. Maybe it’s a coincidence that he targeted an MP who was a passionate advocate of remaining inside the EU, and whose signature issue had been a campaign to admit Syrians in desperate need of refuge.

“Maybe it’s a coincidence that she was a member of a political class that has been reviled for years and with heightened fervour in recent weeks. Maybe it’s a coincidence that she was an advocate for a position depicted by its most fevered opponents as unpatriotic and verging on treason.”

You see! Brexit campaigners accuse Remainers of ‘treason’ and two innocent children lose their mother. Now you have to vote Remain!

Polly Toynbee was even more blatant, actually blaming some Leave campaigners (and specifically, Nigel Farage, the politician whose success forced David Cameron to grant the referendum in the first place) for creating the ‘mood’ which led to the killing:

“There are many decent people involved in the campaign to secure Britain’s withdrawal from the EU, many who respect the referendum as the exercise in democracy that it is. But there are others whose recklessness has been open and shocking. I believe they bear responsibility, not for the attack itself, but for the current mood: for the inflammatory language, for the finger-jabbing, the dogwhistling and the overt racism.

“It’s been part of a noxious brew, with a dangerous anti-politics and anti-MP stereotypes fomented by Leave and their media backers mixed in. Only an hour before this shooting Nigel Farage unveiled a huge poster showing Syrian refugees fleeing to Slovenia last year.”

Operation Fear – the effort to frighten voters into backing Remain – had clearly been a dismal failure, so Cameron and other key Remain figures seized eagerly on the even more cynical opportunity to exploit the tragic death of Jo Cox – Operation Grief and Smear.

While journalists and TV news editors were left to do the bulk of the actual name calling dirty work, Cameron himself set about manipulating public emotions, speaking of the need to “drive out division and hatred” and blatantly using the dead Labour MP’s name and opinions in the desperate drive to save his own skin from the career-crushing referendum disaster that had, according to insider reports, reduced Number 10 to “panic” just two days earlier.


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2502
Everyman decries immorality
Martin Armstrong On Assassination Conspiracies: "There's Too Much At Stake To Allow Brexit"

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-20/martin-armstrong-assassination-conspiracies-theres-too-much-stake-allow-brexit

There is disturbing opinion circulating about Jo Cox may have been assassinated to prevent a BREXIT vote. Many are starting to believe there is a conspiracy plot connecting the dots to ensure a sympathy vote to remain within the EU. People are pointing to the familiar tool of assassination often used to achieve political agendas.

So is there a conspiracy?
Perhaps. They would never investigate themselves, so all this is has been suspicion. What is clear, has been that the EU will collapse if BREXIT is allowed. There is far too much at stake to allow this vote. The burning question will be, just how they cover it up and at what cost?


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2502
Everyman decries immorality
Scotland independence referendum: with no exit poll isn’t there a democratic deficit?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/18/scottish-vote-no-exit-poll-democratic-deficit

James Ball Thursday 18th September 2014

Anyone who’s sat up watching the TV on election night knows there’s a pattern to how things go: before the polls close, early in the evening, broadcasters assiduously say as little as possible to avoid breaking election broadcasting rules.

Then comes 10pm, and the polls close. Moments later, the anchor behind the desk (almost always a Dimbleby of some description) gives the results of the exit poll – often the only bit of red meat to talk about for the next several hours.

Except, as the polls close in the Scottish referendum, this won’t happen – as neither the BBC nor any other media outlet has bothered to pay to get one done.

Exit polls are the best form of voting-related data we can ever get our hands on. They’re collected by large numbers of researchers standing outside polling stations and asking tens of thousands of people how they voted – as well as collecting a little demographic information, such as age, gender, race or social class.

The most visible outlet for the results of this (quite expensive) work is in the first hours after polls close: it gives a snapshot of the result while the laborious work of actually counting the votes is done.

As we won’t start to see the referendum results start to trickle in until at least 2am, without an exit poll broadcasters will have to fill the first four hours of their coverage with … what, exactly? This “poll” of Grindr users might be as good as anything else we’ve got (about 53-47 against independence, if you were wondering).

Why no exit poll for such a momentous and consequential vote? The first possibility is that no one thought the vote would be close, and so deemed it as not interesting enough to be worthy of the spend.

More likely, hopefully, is that the broadcasters were afraid of the consequences of a poll being wrong: if the BBC spends four hours discussing a poll that’s 51-49 in favour of yes, and when the final votes come in the result is no, deputy heads may roll amid the backlash.

In reality broadcasters may have been too cautious: campaigns are very familiar with arguing against exit polls they don’t like. The exit polls for the 2010 general election were very accurate, but disagreed with regular polls suggesting a Lib Dem surge. Early in the evening, many suggested the polls might be wrong and we should wait for the results – which in time confirmed the exits.

While the story in the 1992 general election was very different – the exit polls suggested a Labour win, which did not pan out – the experience has taught everyone caution in how they are handled. Even though a referendum, unlike elections, is without precedent, making weighting a poll tricky, more information is better than less.

But it’s not on election night itself when we will miss having an exit poll. Today, Scotland is making a momentous decision, which could end the 307-year history of the union – and because there’s no exit poll, we’ll all be guessing when it comes to working out how the decision was made. We can’t, of course, use the actual ballots for this as they’re anonymous.

If the polls turn out to be wrong, and yes wins, we won’t know whether it’s because 16- to 17-year-olds, given the vote for the first time, turned out en masse, or whether it’s because of a last-minute change of heart among pensioners (who currently lean towards no).

This detail and data is what lets academics, journalists and politicians alike work out what really happened and how voters act. No other way of getting the information is nearly as reliable.

One way or another, Scottish voters will make history today. For the sake of saving a few tens of thousands of pounds, we’ll never really know why the vote turned out the way it did. We’ve been sadly short-changed.


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2502
Everyman decries immorality
EU Referendum….. Our One and Only Chance of Escape to Sanity

http://www.intifada-palestine.com/2016/06/eu-referendum-one-chance-escape-sanity/

Posted by Stuart Littlewood on June 23, 2016 in Middle East, News & Analysis, UK, World


I have a bad feeling about the referendum vote tomorrow (Thursday).

All the mainstream political parties – Conservatives, Labour, Liberal Democrats, Greens – want us to remain in the EU. The Establishment wants us to remain. The US wants us to remain. And roughly half of British voters are bribed by cosy perks like EU-guaranteed employment and maternity rights to remain; or they feel the devil they know is better than the devil they don’t. The trouble is, they neither know nor properly understand the EU and its devlish machinations. Hardly anyone outside the Brussells bubble does. If the proverbial man on the Clapham Omnibus cannot understand it, and has no chance of exercising democratic control, that on its own is good reason for not belonging to it.

The referendum is a vote the Establishment and our political elite cannot afford to lose. And it’s a vote the EU itself cannot afford to lose. If the UK brick is removed from the crumbling wall the whole top-heavy edifice is likely to come crashing down.

It is for ordinary people to decide the question whether to stay or leave. The referendum is not interested in the views of political parties and their self-serving agendas. Nevertheless the parties are trying desperately to force their views on ordinary voters and persuade them to become their proxies. Millions will do so.

Rational discussion has been further derailed by the horrific slaying of Jo Cox, who was a prominent pro-EU campaigner. Her husband and children were recorded shortly before her murder taking part in a counter-demo against the fishermens’ anti-EU protest flotilla on the Thames and flying an ‘In’ flag on their speedboat.

There’s a strong whiff of dishonesty about the way the murder story unfolded. It has changed or been “corrected” many times. Did the perpetrator shout “Britain first”, or not? Was he attacking an elderly man with Jo intervening, or was he attacking Jo with the elderly gent intervening? He fired three rounds. Was it from a home-made handgun or a sawn-off shotgun? Nobody seems sure. Did he have a history of mental illness, or not? Was he getting treatment? Was he high on drugs, or not? Whatever the truth, the ‘Remain’ side and mainstream media have managed to whip up public hysteria against the ‘hatemongers’ who caused her death, implying the anti-EU brigade.

There’s also a disturbing similarity to the murder, in public, of prominent pro-Euro MP and foreign affairs minister, Anna Lindh, just four days before the Swedish referendum on joining the Eurozone  in 2003. All campaigning was cancelled but the vote went ahead. The result was ‘no’, although in Stockholm where the murder took place, a clear majority voted ‘yes’. The killer was judged mentally ill and admitted he was high on drugs at the time.

Let’s assume Jo was the victim of a deranged loner rather than a ‘psy-ops’ operation as now suggested in some quarters. How are unstable individuals, who may be fiercely patriotic inasmuch as they consider British people and their interests must come first, supposed to regard MPs who are so passionately pro-EU that they support the idea of giving away £8.5bn of British taxpayers’ money a year to a foreign bureaucracy over which we have little or no control? The arithmetic, by the way, is the 2015 figure of £13 billion net contribution minus £4.5 billion then spent by the EU in the UK. The remainder, £8.5 billion, disappears into the gaping maw and is lost for ever. There are hundreds of MPs who seem happy with this gigantic loss of public funds at a time of austerity, real hardship and crumbling public services at home.

Where is such an individual, on a bad day with his pschotropic medication, likely to focus his rage? Jo Cox had other potential nutty enemies too on account of her work in the Middle East (and by the way how wise was it to set up a fund in her name for the Syrian White Helmets?). These are things all MPs need to think about when tempted to stray outside their prime task which is to serve British parliamentary democracy.

Another concern affecting the chances of a positive outcome tomorrow is the strange assortment of spokesmen assigned to the ‘Out’ campaign. Iain Duncan Smith and Michael Gove have very little following. Boris Johnson is more likable but a misfit. His clowning in the past means that no-one knows whether to take him seriously on this most serious of  subjects. Besides, his CV includes Eton and the Bullingdon Club so he comes from the same stable of loutish toffs as ‘Remain’ leaders Cameron and Osborne. Why would he turn on his own and deepen the already throbbing rift in the Conservative Party? The threesome are joined by the volatile Nigel Farage with whom they have little in common and whose UKIP party overflows with undisciplined hardliners with dodgy backgrounds – a gift to the opposing side.

This unlovely quartet are flanked by a handful of more credible MPs who get little chance to speak, and it is not the team most ordinary ‘Leave’ citizens would choose to champion their cause. Farage in particular sails close to the wind in terms of inflammatory language and images, and his placing of a questionable advertisment just prior to the tragedy gave opponents a chance to link Jo Cox’s murder to the Brexiteers and discredit the entire ‘Leave’ campaign.

Farage doesn’t actually put a foot wrong but his inability to soften the tone provides the ever-righteous thought police, the coiled-to-strike propagandists and hostile media enough ammunition to score telling points. And in a neck-and-neck contest that’s all it takes to tip the result the wrong way.

Many of us have a deep sense of foreboding as a result of what happened these last few days. This vote is our one and only chance to escape to sanity and prosperity before the stricken ship goes down. But I’m afraid the Dark Powers may have arranged things so that they keep us under lock and key.

Stuart Littlewood

22 June 2016


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1578
Frequency equals matter...


Buy me a drink
Look, the 'powers that be' control the planet. Stand against them and you're put aside. The planet history is the on going tide of conspiracy theories showing up as true. The history books are only the reported collateral damage of any backroom decisions.
Why waste any more server space?
Move on and do something really real and end up not being able to write about yourself.


---------------------------
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2502
Everyman decries immorality
Look, the 'powers that be' control the planet. Stand against them and you're put aside. The planet history is the on going tide of conspiracy theories showing up as true. The history books are only the reported collateral damage of any backroom decisions.

In this moment now I choose to stand with hhop fait accompli, it's a new piece on the global chessboard and a 'let's all get along' mentality  :)

Why waste any more server space?

Got this covered ;)

Bandwidth & Disk Space is actually free with this hosting account LOL

Move on and do something really real and end up not being able to write about yourself.

Could you clarify that please ? Are you threatening me ?


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2502
Everyman decries immorality
ISIS: The first terror group to build an Islamic state?

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/06/12/world/meast/who-is-the-isis/index.html

By Tim Lister, CNN

Updated 0325 GMT (1125 HKT) June 13, 2014

What are its origins?


In 2006, al Qaeda in Iraq -- under the ruthless leadership of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi -- embarked on seemingly arbitrary and brutal treatment of civilians as it tried to ignite a sectarian war against the majority Shia community.

It came close to succeeding, especially after the bombing of the Al-Askariya Mosque, an important Shia shrine in Samarra, which sparked retaliatory attacks.

But the killing of al-Zarqawi by American forces, the vicious treatment of civilians and the emergence of the Sahwa (Awakening) Fronts under moderate Sunni tribal leaders nearly destroyed the group.

Nearly, but not quite.

When U.S. forces left Iraq, they took much of their intelligence-gathering expertise with them.

Iraqi officials began to speak of a "third generation" of al Qaeda in Iraq.

Two years ago, a former spokesman for the U.S. military in Iraq, Maj. Gen. Jeffrey Buchanan, warned that "if the Iraqi security forces are not able to put pressure on them, they could regenerate."

The capability of those Iraqi forces was fatally compromised by a lack of professional soldiers, the division of military units along sectarian lines and a lack of the equipment needed for fighting an insurgency, such as attack helicopters and reconnaissance capabilities.

The new al Qaeda was rebranded in 2006 as the Islamic State in Iraq (ISI). It would add "and Syria" to its name later.

The group exploited a growing perception among many Sunnis that they were being persecuted by the Shia-dominated government led by Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, starved of resources and excluded from a share of power.

The arrest of senior Sunni political figures and heavy-handed suppression of Sunni dissent were the best recruiting sergeants ISI could have. And it helped the new leader re-establish the group's influence.

The struggle against terrorism cannot be won by military means

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/jul/08/july7.development

r.cook@theguardian.com

Friday 8 July 2005 15.00 BST

I have rarely seen the Commons so full and so silent as when it met yesterday to hear of the London bombings. A forum that often is raucous and rowdy was solemn and grave. A chamber that normally is a bear pit of partisan emotions was united in shock and sorrow. Even Ian Paisley made a humane plea to the press not to repeat the offence that occurred in Northern Ireland when journalists demanded comment from relatives before they were informed that their loved ones were dead.

The immediate response to such human tragedy must be empathy with the pain of those injured and the grief of those bereaved. We recoil more deeply from loss of life in such an atrocity because we know the unexpected disappearance of partners, children and parents must be even harder to bear than a natural death. It is sudden, and therefore there is no farewell or preparation for the blow. Across London today there are relatives whose pain may be more acute because they never had the chance to offer or hear last words of affection.

It is arbitrary and therefore an event that changes whole lives, which turn on the accident of momentary decisions. How many people this morning ask themselves how different it might have been if their partner had taken the next bus or caught an earlier tube?

But perhaps the loss is hardest to bear because it is so difficult to answer the question why it should have happened. This weekend we will salute the heroism of the generation that defended Britain in the last war. In advance of the commemoration there have been many stories told of the courage of those who risked their lives and sometimes lost their lives to defeat fascism. They provide moving, humbling examples of what the human spirit is capable, but at least the relatives of the men and women who died then knew what they were fighting for. What purpose is there to yesterday's senseless murders? Who could possibly imagine that they have a cause that might profit from such pointless carnage?

At the time of writing, no group has surfaced even to explain why they launched the assault. Sometime over the next few days we may be offered a website entry or a video message attempting to justify the impossible, but there is no language that can supply a rational basis for such arbitrary slaughter. The explanation, when it is offered, is likely to rely not on reason but on the declaration of an obsessive fundamentalist identity that leaves no room for pity for victims who do not share that identity.

Yesterday the prime minister described the bombings as an attack on our values as a society. In the next few days we should remember that among those values are tolerance and mutual respect for those from different cultural and ethnic backgrounds. Only the day before, London was celebrating its coup in winning the Olympic Games, partly through demonstrating to the world the success of our multicultural credentials. Nothing would please better those who planted yesterday's bombs than for the atrocity to breed suspicion and hostility to minorities in our own community. Defeating the terrorists also means defeating their poisonous belief that peoples of different faiths and ethnic origins cannot coexist.

In the absence of anyone else owning up to yesterday's crimes, we will be subjected to a spate of articles analysing the threat of militant Islam. Ironically they will fall in the same week that we recall the tenth anniversary of the massacre at Srebrenica, when the powerful nations of Europe failed to protect 8,000 Muslims from being annihilated in the worst terrorist act in Europe of the past generation.

Osama bin Laden is no more a true representative of Islam than General Mladic, who commanded the Serbian forces, could be held up as an example of Christianity. After all, it is written in the Qur'an that we were made into different peoples not that we might despise each other, but that we might understand each other.

Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians. Inexplicably, and with disastrous consequences, it never appears to have occurred to Washington that once Russia was out of the way, Bin Laden's organisation would turn its attention to the west.

The danger now is that the west's current response to the terrorist threat compounds that original error. So long as the struggle against terrorism is conceived as a war that can be won by military means, it is doomed to fail. The more the west emphasises confrontation, the more it silences moderate voices in the Muslim world who want to speak up for cooperation. Success will only come from isolating the terrorists and denying them support, funds and recruits, which means focusing more on our common ground with the Muslim world than on what divides us.

The G8 summit is not the best-designed forum in which to launch such a dialogue with Muslim countries, as none of them is included in the core membership. Nor do any of them make up the outer circle of select emerging economies, such as China, Brazil and India, which are also invited to Gleneagles. We are not going to address the sense of marginalisation among Muslim countries if we do not make more of an effort to be inclusive of them in the architecture of global governance.

But the G8 does have the opportunity in its communique today to give a forceful response to the latest terrorist attack. That should include a statement of their joint resolve to hunt down those who bear responsibility for yesterday's crimes. But it must seize the opportunity to address the wider issues at the root of terrorism.

In particular, it would be perverse if the focus of the G8 on making poverty history was now obscured by yesterday's bombings. The breeding grounds of terrorism are to be found in the poverty of back streets, where fundamentalism offers a false, easy sense of pride and identity to young men who feel denied of any hope or any economic opportunity for themselves. A war on world poverty may well do more for the security of the west than a war on terror.

And in the privacy of their extensive suites, yesterday's atrocities should prompt heart-searching among some of those present. President Bush is given to justifying the invasion of Iraq on the grounds that by fighting terrorism abroad, it protects the west from having to fight terrorists at home. Whatever else can be said in defence of the war in Iraq today, it cannot be claimed that it has protected us from terrorism on our soil.


Robin Cook dies after collapse on mountain


http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2005/aug/07/uk.labour

Sunday 7 August 2005 01.14 BST

Robin Cook, the former Foreign Secretary, died in hospital last night after collapsing while walking in the Scottish hills he loved.

The 59-year-old MP was airlifted to hospital in Inverness yesterday afternoon after being taken ill while walking with his wife, Gaynor, and friends near the summit of Ben Stack, close to Lochinver, Sutherland.

There were unconfirmed reports last night that he suffered a heart attack and then fell, breaking his neck.

Week one of the Russian military intervention in Syria

http://thesaker.is/week-one-of-the-russian-military-intervention-in-syria/

October 10, 2015

This column was originally written for the Unz Review: http://www.unz.com/tsaker/week-one-of-the-russian-military-intervention-in-syria/

The speed at which the Russian military operation in Syria was conducted what a big surprise for the US intelligence community (which I can hardly blame as I was just as surprised myself). Make no mistake here, the Russian force in Syria is a small one, at least for the time being, and it does not even remotely resemble what the rumors had predicted, but it is especially the manner in which it is being used which is very original: as a type of “ force multiplier ” for the Syrian military and a likely cover for the Iranian one. This is a very elegant solution in which a small force achieves a disproportionately big result. This is also a rather dangerous strategy, because it leaves the force very vulnerable, but one which, at least so far, Putin very successfully explained to the Russian people.

According to the most recent poll , 66% of Russian support the airstrikes in Syria while 19% oppose them. Considering the risks involved, these are extremely good numbers. Putin’s personal popularity, by the way, is still at a phenomenal 85% (all these figures have an margin of error of 3.4%). Still, these figures indicate to me that the potential for concern and, possibly, disappointment is present. The big advantage that Putin has over any US President is that Russians understand that wars, all wars, have a cost, and they are therefore nowhere as casualty-averse as the people in the USA or Europe. Still, while combat footage taken from UAV is a good start, Putin will have to be able to show something more tangible soon. Hence, probably, the current Syrian army counter-offensive. Still, the current way of triumphalism in Russia makes me nervous.

The reaction in the West, however, has been very negative, especially after the Russian cruise missile attacks (which mark the first time ever that the Russians have used their non-nuclear but strategic forces in a show of force aimed less as Daesh than at the USA).

Is Washington Coming To Its Senses?

http://www.veteransnewsnow.com/2015/05/16/518290is-washington-coming-to-its-senses-paul-craig-roberts/

By Paul Craig Roberts on May 16, 2015

There is much speculation about US Secretary of State John Kerry’s rush visit to Russia in the wake of Russia’s successful Victory Day celebration on May 9. On May 11, Kerry, who was snubbing Russia on the 9th, was on his way to Russia, and Putin consented to see him on May 12.

As time passes we will find out why Kerry was snubbing Putin on May 9 and 3 days later was criticizing Washington’s puppet regime in Ukraine. For what is known at this time, a possible explanation is that Washington is coming to its senses.



---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2502
Everyman decries immorality
In Syria, There are no Moderates

http://landdestroyer.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/in-syria-there-are-no-moderates.html

Latest Western fabrication attempts to portray "moderate rebels" locked in combat with hordes of Al Qaeda militants as ploy to justify further arming of terrorists and even direct intervention along Syria's borders.

September 20, 2013
(Tony Cartalucci) - Stopped short of direct military intervention by Syrian-Russian geopolitical maneuvering, the West has attempted to retrench their agenda of subverting Syria in a variety of ways. It was reported that the US is now officially arming terrorists inside of Syria after years of semi-covertly passing them thousands of tons of weapons at a time and billions in cash directly and indirectly through Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Jordan, and Qatar. The goal, in part, is to sabotage any attempted UN incursion into Syria to verify and disarm Syria's chemical weapons, then use the UN's failure as justification for direct military intervention.

Additionally, a new narrative is taking shape as the Syrian government stands poised to restore order across its war-ravaged nation. The West is claiming that the "moderate" fighters it has been sponsoring since 2011 are locked in combat with Al Qaeda terrorists across the country, even after numerous attempts to claim Al Qaeda was not even present inside of Syria, or present but in insignificant numbers.

In USA Today's article titled, "Kerry: Syrian rebels have not been hijacked by extremists," it was reported that:

    Extremist groups make up between 15% and 25% of the rebels fighting Syrian leader Bashar Assad, but moderate forces are growing stronger as a result of support from regional allies, Secretary of State John Kerry told Congress on Wednesday.

    "I just don't agree that a majority are al-Qaeda and the bad guys," Kerry said in testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee. "That's not true."

Yet now, the Western media admits they are indeed present in Syria and overwhelming the increasingly "stronger" US-Saudi-armed militants Kerry claimed constituted the vast majority of the so-called "opposition."  The Washington Post's article, "Al-Qaeda-linked fighters seize Syrian town of Azaz from more moderate rebels," claims:

    Al-Qaeda-linked militants seized a key northern Syrian town from rebels on Wednesday, as mounting friction between anti-­government extremists and more moderate, Western-backed opposition factions erupted into all-out conflict.

The Post also reported [emphasis added]:

    “There is a huge expansion of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant,” said Col. Malik al-Kurdi, a senior commander in the Free Syrian Army, who said the extremists had also recently seized the town of Kafarnaje. With Islamic State well-financed and armed, “the FSA power is in reversal,” he said.



But if the so-called "Free Syrian Army" (FSA) is being funded, armed, trained, and otherwise supported with the combined resources of the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, NATO-member Turkey, Jordan, Israel, and others, just how exactly is the "Islamic State," and other extremist factions such as Al Qaeda's Syrian franchise, Al Nusra, getting even more cash and weapons?

The answer, as will be explained further in documented detail below, is that there were never, nor are there any "moderates" operating in Syria. The West has intentionally armed and funded Al Qaeda and other sectarian extremists since as early as 2007 in preparation for an engineered sectarian bloodbath serving US-Saudi-Israeli interests. This latest bid to portray the terrorists operating along and within Syria's borders as "divided" along extremists/moderate lines is a ploy to justify the continued flow of Western cash and arms into Syria to perpetuate the conflict, as well as create conditions along Syria's borders with which Western partners, Israel, Jordan, and Turkey, can justify direct military intervention.

There aren't, nor were there ever "moderates" fighting in Syria.


In an astounding admission, the New York Times confirmed in an April 2013 report that the so-called "Syrian opposition" is entirely run by Al Qaeda and literally states: 

     Nowhere in rebel-controlled Syria is there a secular fighting force to speak of.

From the beginning, it was clear to geopolitical analysts that the conflict in Syria was not "pro-democracy" protesters rising up, but rather the fruition of a well-documented conspiracy between the US, Israel, and Saudi Arabia to arm and direct sectarian extremists affiliated with Al Qaeda against the Syrian government.

This was documented as early as 2007 - a full 4 years before the 2011 "Arab Spring" would begin - by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh in his New Yorker article titled, ""The Redirection: Is the Administration’s new policy benefiting our enemies in the war on terrorism?" which stated specifically (emphasis added):

    To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.

For over two years the US, UK, France, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, and Turkey have sent billions of dollars and thousands of tons of weapons into Syria along side known-terrorists from Libya, Chechnya, neighboring Lebanon, Jordan, and Iraq. In the Telegraph's article titled, "US and Europe in 'major airlift of arms to Syrian rebels through Zagreb'," it is reported:

    It claimed 3,000 tons of weapons dating back to the former Yugoslavia have been sent in 75 planeloads from Zagreb airport to the rebels, largely via Jordan since November

    The story confirmed the origins of ex-Yugoslav weapons seen in growing numbers in rebel hands in online videos, as described last month by The Daily Telegraph and other newspapers, but suggests far bigger quantities than previously suspected.

    The shipments were allegedly paid for by Saudi Arabia at the bidding of the United States, with assistance on supplying the weapons organised through Turkey and Jordan, Syria's neighbours. But the report added that as well as from Croatia, weapons came "from several other European countries including Britain", without specifying if they were British-supplied or British-procured arms.

    British military advisers however are known to be operating in countries bordering Syria alongside French and Americans, offering training to rebel leaders and former Syrian army officers. The Americans are also believed to be providing training on securing chemical weapons sites inside Syria.

Additionally, The New York Times in its article, "Arms Airlift to Syria Rebels Expands, With C.I.A. Aid," admits that:

    With help from the C.I.A., Arab governments and Turkey have sharply increased their military aid to Syria’s opposition fighters in recent months, expanding a secret airlift of arms and equipment for the uprising against President Bashar al-Assad, according to air traffic data, interviews with officials in several countries and the accounts of rebel commanders.

    The airlift, which began on a small scale in early 2012 and continued intermittently through last fall, expanded into a steady and much heavier flow late last year, the data shows. It has grown to include more than 160 military cargo flights by Jordanian, Saudi and Qatari military-style cargo planes landing at Esenboga Airport near Ankara, and, to a lesser degree, at other Turkish and Jordanian airports.

The US State Department had also announced it was sending hundreds of millions of dollars more in aid, equipment and even armored vehicles to militants operating in Syria, along with demands of its allies to "match" the funding to reach a goal of over a billion dollars. The NYT would report in their article, "Kerry Says U.S. Will Double Aid to Rebels in Syria," that:

    With the pledge of fresh aid, the total amount of nonlethal assistance from the United States to the coalition and civic groups inside the country is $250 million. During the meeting here, Mr. Kerry urged other nations to step up their assistance, with the objective of providing $1 billion in international aid.

In recent weeks, the US has admitted that it is now officially arming and equipping terrorists inside of Syria. The Washington Post's article, "U.S. weapons reaching Syrian rebels," reported:

    The CIA has begun delivering weapons to rebels in Syria, ending months of delay in lethal aid that had been promised by the Obama administration, according to U.S. officials and Syrian figures. The shipments began streaming into the country over the past two weeks, along with separate deliveries by the State Department of vehicles and other gear — a flow of material that marks a major escalation of the U.S. role in Syria’s civil war.

The US State Department has admitted Al Qaeda is the prominent fighting force in Syria.

And as this astronomical torrent of cash, weapons, and equipment was overtly sent by the West into Syria, and continues to this very day, the US State Department since the very beginning of the violence has known that the most prominent fighting group operating inside Syria was Al Qaeda, more specifically, the al Nusra front. The US State Department's official press statement titled, "Terrorist Designations of the al-Nusrah Front as an Alias for al-Qa'ida in Iraq," stated explicitly that:

    Since November 2011, al-Nusrah Front has claimed nearly 600 attacks – ranging from more than 40 suicide attacks to small arms and improvised explosive device operations – in major city centers including Damascus, Aleppo, Hamah, Dara, Homs, Idlib, and Dayr al-Zawr. During these attacks numerous innocent Syrians have been killed.

The State Department admits that from the very beginning, Al Qaeda has been carrying out hundreds of attacks in every major city in Syria. Clearly for those who read the 2007 Hersh piece in the New Yorker, and then witnessed the rise of Al Qaeda in Syria, the explanation is quite simple - the West intentionally and systematically funded and armed Al Qaeda to gain a foothold in Syria, then overthrow the Syrian government in an unprecedented sectarian bloodbath and subsequent humanitarian catastrophe, just as was planned years ago.

If the US & its allies are funding "moderates," who is funding Al Qaeda? (The US).

However, now, according to Western leaders, the public is expected to believe that despite the US, UK, France, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, and Turkey flooding Syria with billion in cash, and thousands of tons of weapons, all sent exclusively to "secular moderates," somehow, Al Qaeda has still managed to gain preeminence amongst the "opposition."

How can this be? If a 7-nation axis is arraying the summation of its resources in the region behind "secular moderates," who then is arraying even more resources behind Al Qaeda? The answer is simple. There never were any "secular moderates," a fact the New York Times has now fully admitted.

In its article titled, "Islamist Rebels Create Dilemma on Syria Policy," the New York Times admits:

    Across Syria, rebel-held areas are dotted with Islamic courts staffed by lawyers and clerics, and by fighting brigades led by extremists. Even the Supreme Military Council, the umbrella rebel organization whose formation the West had hoped would sideline radical groups, is stocked with commanders who want to infuse Islamic law into a future Syrian government.

    Nowhere in rebel-controlled Syria is there a secular fighting force to speak of.

However, in an explanation that defies reason, the article states [emphasis added]: 

    The Islamist character of the opposition reflects the main constituency of the rebellion, which has been led since its start by Syria’s Sunni Muslim majority, mostly in conservative, marginalized areas. The descent into brutal civil war has hardened sectarian differences, and the failure of more mainstream rebel groups to secure regular arms supplies has allowed Islamists to fill the void and win supporters.

To "secure regular arms supplies" from whom? According to the West, they have been supplying "mainstream rebel groups" with billions in cash, and thousands of tons of weaponry - and now according to the BBC, training as well. Where if not intentionally and directly into the hands of al-Nusra, did all of this cash, these weapons, and training go?

The NYT also admits (emphasis added):

    Of most concern to the United States is the Nusra Front, whose leader recently confirmed that the group cooperated with Al Qaeda in Iraq and pledged fealty to Al Qaeda’s top leader, Ayman al-Zawahri, Osama bin Laden’s longtime deputy. Nusra has claimed responsibility for a number of suicide bombings and is the group of choice for the foreign jihadis pouring into Syria.

Not only is the Syrian government fighting now openly admitted Al Qaeda terrorists, but terrorists that are not even of Syrian origin.

More outrageous still, is that the New York Times fully admits that the very oil fields the European Union has lifted sanctions on and is now buying oil from in Syria (see BBC's "EU eases Syria oil embargo to help opposition"), are completely controlled by Al Qaeda - meaning the European Union is now intentionally exchanging cash with known international terrorists guilty of horrific atrocities, in exchange for oil.  The NYT reports:

    Elsewhere, they [al-Nusra] have seized government oil fields, put employees back to work and now profit from the crude they produce.

And:

    In the oil-rich provinces of Deir al-Zour and Hasaka, Nusra fighters have seized government oil fields, putting some under the control of tribal militias and running others themselves.

The Times continues by admitting (emphasis added):

    Nusra’s hand is felt most strongly in Aleppo, where the group has set up camp in a former children’s hospital and has worked with other rebel groups to establish a Shariah Commission in the eye hospital next door to govern the city’s rebel-held neighborhoods. The commission runs a police force and an Islamic court that hands down sentences that have included lashings, though not amputations or executions as some Shariah courts in other countries have done.

    Nusra fighters also control the power plant and distribute flour to keep the city’s bakeries running.

This last point, "and distribute flour to keep the city's bakeries running," is of extreme importance, because that "flour" they are "distributing" comes admittedly, directly from the United State of America.

The US feeds Al Qaeda...

In the Washington Post's article, "U.S. feeds Syrians, but secretly," it is claimed that: 

    In the heart of rebel-held territory in Syria’s northern province of Aleppo, a small group of intrepid Westerners is undertaking a mission of great stealth. Living anonymously in a small rural community, they travel daily in unmarked cars, braving airstrikes, shelling and the threat of kidnapping to deliver food and other aid to needy Syrians — all of it paid for by the U.S. government.

The Washington Post then claims that most Syrians credit Al Qaeda's al-Nusra with providing the aid:

    “America has done nothing for us. Nothing at all,” said Mohammed Fouad Waisi, 50, spitting out the words for emphasis in his small Aleppo grocery store, which adjoins a bakery where he buys bread every day. The bakery is fully supplied with flour paid for by the United States. But Waisi credited Jabhat al-Nusra — a rebel group the United States has designated a terrorist organization because of its ties to al-Qaeda — with providing flour to the region, though he admitted he wasn’t sure where it comes from.

Clearly, the puzzle is now complete. Indeed Mr. Mohammed Fouad Waisi was correct, Jabhat al-Nusra, a listed terrorist organization by the US State Department, is supplying the people with flour - flour it receives by the ton directly and intentionally from the United States in direct contradiction to its own anti-terror laws, international laws, and the US State Department's own frequent denials that it is bolstering terrorists inside of Syria.

Clearly the US and its allies are propping up terrorism, and more alarming is that the "aid" they have been providing the Syrian people, appears to have been used as a political weapon by Al Qaeda, allowing them to take, hold, and permanently subjugate territory inside Syria. It should be noted again, that the New York Times itself admits that the ranks of al-Nusra are filled with foreign, not Syrian, fighters.

US narrative aims at "saving" non-existent "moderates" from the Al Qaeda terrorists they themselves are intentionally arming.

Revealed is a conspiracy so insidious, so outrageous, and a web of lies so tangled, that Western governments perhaps count on their populations to disbelieve their tax money is being used to intentionally fund and arm savage terrorism while purposefully fueling a sectarian bloodbath whose death toll is sounded daily by the very people driving it up to astronomical heights. The cards are down - the US has been exposed as openly funding, arming, and supplying Al Qaeda in Syria for over two years and in turn, is directly responsible for the death, atrocities, and humanitarian disasters within and along Syria's borders that have resulted.

While the US attempts to sell military intervention on behalf of Al Qaeda in Syria, using the flimsy, yet familiar pretext of "chemical weapons," it appears that before even one American boot officially touches Syrian soil, an already horrific crime against humanity of historic proportions has been committed by the US and its allies against the Syrian people.

This is a crime against humanity the West intends to fully compound with its new narrative of "moderates" fighting Al Qaeda. The goal is to justify the continued torrent of cash and weapons into Syria to fuel the conflict and perhaps to have "safe zones" imposed across Syria's borders under the guise of "running out" Al Qaeda. Of course, Al Qaeda will continue to be armed and funded by the very interests "running them out" deeper and deeper into Syria.

It is important to understand two undeniable, verified facts. First, there are no moderates in Syria, and second, Al Qaeda's ascendance in Syria is the direct results of the West intentionally arming them, funding them, training them, providing them with tactical, logistical, and strategic support, as well as financing them through the purchase of Al Qaeda-controlled oil fields. Understanding these facts lifts the veil regarding the latest round of lies and fabrications by the West to regain the initiative amidst their premeditated, 2-plus year assault on Syria.


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2502
Everyman decries immorality
Israel: The missing link in Syria puzzle

https://www.rt.com/op-edge/istael-syria-attack-crisis-251/

Published time: 31 Aug, 2013 15:55

As the world holds its breath, wondering when the US and its allies will attack Syria, Western governments and its well-oiled mainstream media seem to be ignoring a key player that has kept strangely quiet during this crisis: Israel.

 Today, US power rests heavily on its terrifying military, its industrial-financial complex, and its global media clout.  But that power is fast eroding because, in the age of the Internet, power is increasingly much more about prestige, credibility and trust, an area where the US is falling to pieces.

US interventionism has become all too blatant over the past 20 years. The Balkans War in the late 1990s, with the bombing of Belgrade, triggered initial alarms especially amongst non-ally countries because, coupled with Bush Sr.’s 1991 Gulf War, it became clear that the  American global hegemon was out to get the whole world, especially with the former Soviet Union out of the way.

But what got red lights blinking really strongly was Iraq.  Baby Bush’s false accusations of “weapons of mass destruction” as an excuse to take out an entire country just so he could “smoke out” an uncomfortable former associate, Saddam Hussein, were blatantly obscene and proved to many that the American global hegemon was officially out of control.

Back then, America still had the excuse of the horrendous 9/11 terror attacks in New York and Washington to justify its mass war-mongering.  But American credibility took a sharp fall when George W himself ended up admitting that: (a) there was no connection whatsoever between nasty Saddam and nasty Osama who allegedly did 9/11 (Alas! We’ll never know because Obama later threw Osama into the ocean...) and (b) there most definitely, assuredly and unequivocally were NO weapons of mass destruction in Iraq...  Add to that the burden of growing proof that 9/11 may have been a false flag...

So, America had to design a new system of war or, rather a new system of getting itself into war against its selected “rogue state” targets.  It’s no longer enough to go on TV and accuse such and such a country of being a “danger to world peace” or that it “does not have the kind of democracy that we want to see” as Hillary Clinton said when visiting Egypt only last year... 

No.  Something new had to be invented: “The Arab Spring”, which is the code for instigating, triggering and engineering civil strife in target countries which can then be escalated, as necessary, to veritable social war.  And if the ongoing leadership still don’t get the message and insist on clinging to power, then US, UK, Israeli and other intel agencies can escalate the engineered nationwide mischief all the way up to fully–fledged civil war.  Libya, Syria, Egypt, Afghanistan, Iraq…

 Engineering such wars throughout the Middle East basically required:

(a) Identifying who the “freedom fighters” would be – mostly thugs, terrorists, guerrillas, soldiers of fortune and a wide assortment of violent mercenaries;

(b) Then arming them with lethal high (though not too “high”)-tech weaponry, financing them to ensure they can do as they please inside the target country, and

(c) Unleashing them onto the cities of Egypt, Libya, Syria and elsewhere, just as they did (and still do) inside Iraq.

And if all of that doesn’t work, then just order several NATO fighter squadrons to bomb the damn place to smithereens and provide satellite Intel to local “freedom fighters” so they can execute Hollywood-like operations such as the live-TV assassination of Muammar Gaddafi and his family, accompanied by Hillary Clinton’s chuckles on CBS TV.

But the case of Syria is different.   

The world will no longer have America pulling the wool over its eyes.  Growing sectors in the international community are coming to understand that those gangs of violent assassins, rapists and criminals – aka Syrian Freedom Fighters – have been armed, trained, financed and given the fullest media support by the US and its allies. 

America’s dirty tricks department is raving full-blast right now trying to pin recent chemical weapons attacks on Bashar al-Assad’s government, but this is getting very low credibility ratings.  Common sense dictates that it would be suicide for President Bashar Assad to kill his own civilians – including children – in a Damascus neighborhood, when his real enemies are the Western-backed terrorists and delinquents trying to take over his country.

Why would Assad give his enemies the “perfect excuse” for an armed attack against Syria?  Common sense tells us that Assad is surely telling the truth when he accuses those very same terrorists for that “false flag” attack as a way of bringing NATO in on their side, with its jets, cluster bombs and napalm.

Every time we hear of such dreadful terror attacks we need to understand two fundamental issues: (1) who benefits from such attacks, and (2) follow the money trail...

Today, America’s credibility, trust and prestige have fallen so low that even the British Parliament finally disavowed any armed intervention by the UK, at least until such time as the UN or some truly trustworthy independent entity churns up irrefutable proof regarding who perpetrated those heinous chemical weapons atrocities in Syrian last week.   

 So David Cameron cannot just yet go into “puppy poodle mode” behind Obama, as his predecessor Tony Blair did so obediently behind George W. a decade ago over Iraq.

But let’s look at three factors that are missing in the ongoing analysis of the Syrian crisis:

1) Israel

Ever since the two Gulf wars, America has been fighting Israelis’ wars for them.  In the case of the 2003 invasion and destruction of Iraq, this was so obvious that the very same NeoCons who in 1996-7 planned war against Iraq in their “Project for a New American Century (PNAC)” think-tank - Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Bush, Douglas Feith, David Wormser and others – would later execute that war in 2003 as top officers in the George W. Bush regime.  The prime reason: Saddam Hussein was then the greatest threat to “democratic and favored ally” Israel.

Several of those NeoCons – Douglas Feith, David Wormser, Richard Perle and other Bushites - had already gone so far as to prepare a strategy report for Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu in 1996 called “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm” which, again, targeted Iraq as Israel’s key foe at the time.

So, the Iraq War was to a great extent a proxy war that only benefitted Israel, becoming a huge headache for America, which lost thousands of its sons. 

As the former prime minister of Malaysia, Mahathir Bin Mohammed, once famously pointed out: "The Jews rule the world by proxy. They get others to fight and die for them."

2) Israel

The excessive and overpowering role that Zionism plays in American politics, American finance, American universities, American mainstream media including it Hollywood “entertainment industry,” and over American foreign policy, has been all but proven. This vital issue today lies at the heart of an increasingly far-reaching debate among America’s intelligentsia, which is, of course, being hushed up by the mainstream media.

One of its milestones was played out by two of its prestigious academics – Stephen Walt, former Dean of the John F Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, and his colleague John Mearsheimer, professor of Political Science at Chicago University – who published their groundbreaking book: “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy” in 2007.

In it, they show in a very convincing and well-documented manner the long reach and powerful clout that the “Israel First” lobby exercises over the US media, the banks, the Congress, the State Department and the Pentagon, whereby they are able to systematically tip the scales in favor of Israel, no matter what the cost. No matter if right or wrong.
And the cost to America has been extremely detrimental to its National Interest.  Here lies one of the roots of much of the disrespect, mistrust and even hate that growing sections of global public opinion feel towards the US and its key allies.

3) Israel

President Barack Obama’s problem right now is that America’s military establishment is very much aware of the stakes involved in any “preventive attack” against Syria and, much more importantly, against Iran.  Intervention against either or both countries will undoubtedly lead to massive war in the Middle East.

Look at a map: Syria and Iran lie squarely inside Russia’s vital geopolitical sphere of interest, which is already under heavy Western encroachment.  Read their lips: Russia is saying, “not one step further!” 

America would do very well to think twice or thrice before doing anything rash…

But here comes the problem: ever since Israel was kicked out of Southern Lebanon in July 2006 by the well-armed and trained (by Iran and Russia) forces of Hezbollah commanded by Nasrallah, Israel has been licking its wounds; dark furor and revenge burns in Zionism’s heart.

Since Bibi Netanyahu came back to power in 2011, Israel has gone into preventive war mode, using Iran’s inexistent nuclear program as a pretext.  For that past four or five years, Israel has been threatening Iran with military attack almost every other day, with Washington, London and Paris nervously obliging...

 The American military, however, are painfully aware that there’s some truth to former Prime Minister Mahathir’s words.  They don’t want to fight yet another Israeli war this time in Iran.  So, they have been acting as a brake which is reflected in Obama’s increasing “caution” regarding Iran, going so far as to dispatching his military top brass to Israel to calm Netanyahu down, trying to make sure Israel does not launch a unilateral “preventive attack” on Iran that will drag the US into a massive conflict in the Middle East, the results of which are far from clear.

Actually a US-UK defeat in the Middle East could very well spell the beginning of the end of America as a global superpower. Russia (and China) are staring very sharply at the Middle East…  They are not blinking...

The ongoing US military strategy says that if the White House must take on Iran, it should first take out Syria.  At least that seems to be America’s promise of sorts to keep Netanyahu’s dogs of war at bay.

But the weeks have turned into months, the months into years and Zionists in Israel, the US, Britain , France and elsewhere are getting awfully impatient.

They want their D-Day now!

If the road to Tehran must go through Damascus, then, America: take out Damascus now!

For three years the US has been engineering “Arab Spring” civil war in Syria but Bashar Assad’s still there. Russia stands behind him.

A UN Security Council unanimous vote against Syria is no longer an option. Britain’s Parliament just said no to David Cameron, and French President Hollande’s support of the US lacks clout: sadly for the French it’s been many decades since France was last able to decide the outcome of any war, anywhere...  Now, many in the US Congress are grumbling...

So, Mr. “CEO” of the United States of America Barack Obama: it’s your call now!

 You either strike against Syria now – today, even – to the unanimous applause of Zionists in Israel, Congress, the global banks and markets, the mainstream media and throughout the world, or you stand down and your prestige, “Mr. President,” goes down the drain.

Your bluff will have been called. And a bluffing president is no president at all.

Mr. Putin knows this only too well, which is why he maintains Russia’s powerful fleet roaming the waters of the Mediterranean off the coast of Syria...

Once again, it’s shame on you, America!

Another fine mess the Israeli Trojan Horse has gotten you into...!

Adrian Salbuchi is a political analyst, author, speaker and radio/TV commentator in Argentina. www.asalbuchi.com.ar

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2502
Everyman decries immorality
Ayalon Institute Bullet Factory

January 10th 2015

http://shalomisraeltours.com/ayalon-institute-museum/

More than meets the eye, the Ayalon Institute Museum is located north of the central Israeli city of Rehovot. On the surface, this area was used for training young people for idyllic and pastoral kibbutz life. Above ground, there was a fully functioning kibbutz, which was built in just 22 days, complete with housing, a dining hall, chicken coop, cow barn, workshops, a laundry, a bakery, and a vegetable garden. But underground, this kibbutz was the first pre-state Israeli bullet production factory, built during the times of the British Mandate and used by pioneer groups including the Palmach, Hagana and Hatzofim.

In the 1930s, the Zionist leadership began to illegally produce and smuggle weapons for the coming revolt against British rule and War of Independence, which ultimately saw Israel defend itself against eight Arab armies. Machine guns were relatively easy to procure, but bullet production proved more difficult. The Jews smuggled machinery into Palestine and began to produce bullets underground. In its day, the Ayalon Institute was the largest underground IMI (Israel Military Industries) factory and produced well over two-million 9mm bullets during its years of operation from 1946 to 1948. And all the while, only a few of the kibbutz residents were privy to the activities taking place below ground.

Today, the Ayalon Institute functions as a museum. Watch a short film on the history of the institute and see how this factory was hidden from the British for so many years and how it operated. You will see the laundry, which ran 24 hours a day to conceal the noise of the factory below. The bakery provided clean air to the factory through pipes attached to its furnace. Both the bakery and the laundry concealed secret entrances into the factory, which you can climb down. Learn how the bullets were produced, how they were shipped to military groups, and how the British were kept in the dark.

The Ayalon Institute is open Sunday-Thursday 8:30 AM- 4:00 PM (last tour is at 3:00 PM), Friday and Holiday Eves, 8:30 AM-2:00 PM, Saturday and Holidays: 9:00 AM-4:00 PM, by appointment only.

The Ayalon Institute is not far from the Weizmann Institute, Israel’s premier science research center. Complete your day with a guided tour of the Weizmann campus.


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2502
Everyman decries immorality
Is the Saudi 9/11 Story Part Of The Deception? — Paul Craig Roberts

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/07/20/is-the-saudi-911-story-part-of-the-deception-paul-craig-roberts/

James Jesus Angleton, head of CIA counterintelligence for three decades, long ago explained to me that intelligence services create stories inside stories, each with its carefully constructed trail of evidence, in order to create false trails as diversions. Such painstaking work can serve a variety of purposes. It can be used to embarrass or discredit an innocent person or organization that has an unhelpful position on an important issue and is in the way of an agenda. It can be used as a red herring to draw attention away from a failing explanation of an event by producing an alternative false explanation. I forget what Angleton called them, but the strategy is to have within a false story other stories that are there but withheld because of “national security” or “politically sensitive issues” or some such. Then if the official story gets into trouble, the backup story can be released in order to deflect attention into a new false story or to support the original story. Angleton said that intelligence services protect their necessary misdeeds by burying the misdeed in competing explanations.

Watching the expert craftsmanship of the “Saudis did 9/11” story, I have been wondering if the Saudi story is what Angleton described as a story within a story.

The official 9/11 story has taken too many hits to remain standing. The collapse of Building 7, which, if memory serves, was not mentioned at all in the 9/11 Commission Report, has been proven to have been a controlled demolition. Building 7 collapsed at free fall acceleration, which can only be achieved with controlled demolition.

Over 100 firemen, policemen, and building maintenance personnel who were inside the two towers prior to their collapse report hearing and experiencing multiple explosions. According to William Rodriguez, a maintenance employee in the north tower, there were explosions in the sub-basements of the tower prior to the time airplanes are said to have hit the towers.

An international team of scientists found in the dust of the towers both reacted and unreacted residues of explosives and substances capable of instantly producing the extreme temperatures that cut steel.

A large number of pilots, both commercial and military, have questioned the ability of alleged hijackers with substandard flight skills to conduct the maneuvers required by the flight paths.

2,500 architects and engineers have called for an independent investigation of the failure of the towers that were certified to be capable of withstanding a hit by airplanes.

The revelation that the 9/11 attack was financed by the Saudi government has the effect of bolstering the sagging official story while simultaneously satisfying the growing recognition that something is wrong with the official story.

Commentators and media are treating the story of Saudi financing of 9/11 as a major revelation that damns the Bush regime, but the revelation not only leaves in place but also strengthens the official story that Osama bin Laden carried out the attack with precisely the hijackers identified in the original story. The Bush regime is damned merely for protecting its Saudi friends and withholding evidence of Saudi financing.

The evidence of Saudi financing is what restores the credibility of the original story. Nothing changes in the story of the collapse of the three WTC buildings, the attack on the Pentagon, and the crashed airliner in Pennsylvania. American anger is now directed at the Saudis for financing the successful attacks.

To hype the Saudi story is to support the official story. A number of commentators who are usually suspicious of government are practically jumping up and down for joy that now they have something to pin on Bush. They haven’t noticed that what they are pinning on him supports the official 9/11 story.

Moreover, they have not explained why the Saudi government would finance an attack on the country that protects it. Saudi Arabia is a long-time partner. They accept pieces of paper for their oil and then use the paper to finance the US Treasury’s debt and to purchase US weapons systems, purchases that lead to larger weapons sales, thus spreading R&D costs over larger volume.

What do the Saudis have to gain from embarrassing the US by demonstrating the total failure of US national security? Really, if a few hijackers can outfox the NSA, the CIA, and the national security state, we clearly aren’t getting our money’s worth and are giving up our civil liberties for nothing.

Saudi financing does not explain who had access to wire the buildings for demolition, or to schedule on 9/11 a simulated attack that the actual attack modeled, thus causing confusion among some authorities about what was real and what was not.

Saudi financing does not explain the dancing Israelis who were apprehended filming the attacks on the towers and who later said on Israeli TV that they were sent to New York to film the attack. How did the Israelis know? Did Prince Bandar tell them? Bush didn’t tell us about the Saudis, and the Israelis didn’t tell us about the attack. Which is worse?

This Saudi revelation is too convenient for the official story. How do we know that it was not devised as a story inside the story to be used when the story got into trouble? The Saudis would be a logical choice to be put in such a position as the original neoconservative plan for overthrowing Middle Eastern governments included overthrowing Saudi Arabia. Now we have an excuse.

I have doubts that the alleged hijackers played any role other than cover for bringing down buildings by controlled demolition. Possibly the hijackers and the Saudis who financed them, if the evidence is real and not concocted, were not aware of their role and thought they were participating in a different deception.

Are we being deceived again with a story inside a story? Will it succeed along the lines that Angleton explained? Or will it possibly backfire? If the US government will hide some of the truth from us for 13 years, why not all of the truth? What else in the official story is false?


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2502
Everyman decries immorality
Boris Johnson & the strange case of the British foreign secretaries

https://www.rt.com/op-edge/352912-boris-johnson-uk-us-obama/

 Whatever one thinks of him, British Conservative Party politician and newspaper columnist Boris Johnson hasn't been one to blindly follow what could be called a slavishly pro-US line on foreign policy.

In December, he called for the UK and its allies to work with Russia and the Syrian government against Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL). When Syrian forces, with Russian assistance, liberated the ancient city of Palmyra in March, Johnson praised President Assad. Johnson has also blamed the EU for the crisis in Ukraine – something else you don't expect to hear from prominent British politicians who are always so keen to blame Russia.

But now Boris Johnson seems to have changed his tune.

Consider: Boris Johnson, March 2016, 'Bravo for Assad!' (after Palmyra is liberated from IS).

Boris Johnson, July 2016, 'Assad must go!’

What's going on? How can someone be toasting President Assad one minute and the next minute be saying that it’s his “clear view” that “the suffering of the Syrian people will not end while Assad remains in power”?

Answer: It's called 'Being Appointed UK Foreign Secretary.'

Something very strange seems to happen to people who land this gig. Beforehand they say some quite sensible things on foreign policy, as Johnson did when he called for the West to work with Assad and Russia to defeat IS.

But it seems as soon as they go through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office doors in King Charles Street, SWIA 2AH, the new foreign secretary comes over all Uncle Sam and starts talking the language of the US State Department. “The official enemy Saddam/Milosevic/Gaddafi/Mullah Omar/Assad (delete as appropriate) must go”; “There can be no future for the official enemy”, “we must play an active, more engaged role in foreign affairs”…Repeat ad infinitum.

It's not just BoJo – who, let’s face it, is not a politician renowned for his consistency – who has changed his tune after becoming foreign secretary.

The late Robin Cook was a center-left Labour politician who railed against Ronald Reagan and the arms race in the 1980s. He was a member of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND). But when he became foreign secretary, Robin Cook the one-time foreign policy dove morphed into Robin Cook the hawk, with Britain, under his watch, taking part in the December 1998 bombing raids on Iraq and the US Secretary of State’s Madeline aka ‘Mad' Albright’s 78-day bombing of socialist Yugoslavia in 1999. Old admirers of the politician looked on aghast at the transformation.

In 2001 Cook lost his job as foreign secretary and was demoted to be Leader of the House. And guess what? Straight away, he stopped talking the language of the US State Department and became Robin Cook, the man of peace again. He earned a lot of plaudits – and rightly so – for his powerful speech when resigning from the Blair government on the eve of the Iraq war – in which he talked about “the strong sense of injustice throughout the Muslim world at what it sees as one rule for the allies of the US and another rule for the rest.”

“Nor is our credibility helped by the appearance that our partners in Washington are less interested in disarmament than they are in regime change in Iraq,” Cook added.

In July 2005, just a month before his untimely death, Cook wrote in the Guardian of how Osama bin Laden had been “armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian invasion of Afghanistan.”

Robin Cook was a great anti-war politician – except for when he was foreign secretary.

It was a similar story with Cook’s successor, Jack Straw. Straw was a one-time student activist – and like Cook, was also in CND. But as foreign secretary, he helped take Britain into the Iraq war. When he left the Foreign Office, Straw started talking sense again. In 2013 he voted against bombing the Syrian government, which the US and the British government were so keen to do.

“There will be casualties from any military action – some military and almost certainly many civilian,” Straw warned.

Yes, it really was the same Jack Straw who played such a key role in the Iraq war.

Or was it?

One theory (cue some sinister, creepy music), is that politicians who are appointed foreign secretary are kidnapped by the CIA, put in cold storage – and replaced by 'doppelgängers' – i.e. doubles of themselves, programmed to blindly follow the US State Department line. Then, when their time as foreign secretary is over, a switch takes place: the originals are de-frozen and the 'doppelgängers' are destroyed. This could explain why the people in question go back to talking sense – as they did before they were foreign secretary. If that sounds a bit sci-fi-ish then it’s not surprising.

In the classic 1970 Dr Who story The Autons, the Nestene, a non-physical alien intelligence, plan to replace leading politicians and public figures in Britain with plastic replicas, who will help them to take over the country.

While in the New Avengers episode Faces, from 1976, high-ranking British government officials are replaced by down-and-outs who are given plastic surgery by a certain Dr Prator and then brainwashed.

Did the bigwigs at the CIA watch these programs and think, “That‘s a darn good idea. Let‘s try it on UK foreign secretaries!” We do know that Dr Who and The New Avengers were screened in the US….

OK, joke over. My gut feeling, and I expect yours too, is that ‘doppelgängers’ is one conspiracy theory too far.

So why then do our foreign secretaries feel obliged to dance enthusiastically to whatever tune Uncle Sam’s playing on his tin whistle?

For much of the post-WW2 period it could be explained in four words: The Anglo-American Loan. A $3.75 billion loan at 2 percent annual interest. That’s around $57 billion in today’s money.

Pipe-puffing premier Harold Wilson went as far as he could in keeping the UK out of the Vietnam quagmire in the Swinging Sixties, but when anti-war critics asked why he did not come out publicly and denounce US imperialist aggression in south-east Asia, he replied: “Because we can’t kick our creditors in the balls!”

Now here’s the really fascinating bit. As Britain’s debt to the US was reduced, the UK’s adherence to the US in foreign policy became stronger, not weaker. Just compare Tony Blair’s “I’ll be with you, whatever” stance, to that of Wilson’s or Heath’s. The Anglo-American loan was finally paid off in 2006, but four years after the debts were cleared, WikiLeaks revealed how leading members of the Conservative government, when in opposition, had pledged to US diplomats that they would run a ‘pro-US regime’ and buy more US arms when they got into power.

To show his ‘Atlanticist’ credentials, Foreign Secretary William Hague revealed he has a sister who is an American and that he vacationed in the States.

Well, I’ve taken vacations in the States and love visiting the country, but that doesn’t mean I go along with US foreign policy. The US diplomats themselves were amused by just how much Hague and his colleagues were willing to suck up to them.

This child-like eagerness to please the US could also be seen by the comment Boris Johnson made when being asked by a reporter about an apology to Barack Obama he might have to make having been appointed foreign secretary. Johnson, who has offended quite a few people in the past, said that the US “would be in the front of the queue” for apologies. His quip referred of course to the comment Obama had made about Britain having to go to “the back of the queue” for trade deals if it left the EU.

It seems a US president can talk about Britain going to the back of a queue but the British foreign secretary can only talk of the US being at the front.

Doesn’t that tell us everything we need to know about the so-called ‘Special Relationship’?

The conclusion has to be that whoever gets the gig, British foreign secretaries fall into line. Obedience is probably achieved in a variety of ways. It’s silly to think that the ‘deep state’ only occurs in Turkey – there’s enough evidence that we’ve got one in Britain too.

The role of senior civil servants at the Foreign Office, whose job is to ensure continuity, is undoubtedly important. Careerism too plays a big part – as I mentioned here, there are a set of foreign policy positions which those who hold, or aspire to high office in the UK, are expected to hold. Boris Johnson is smart enough to know that if he did displease Washington by exclaiming 'Bravo for Assad!’ at the top of his voice at a White House dinner, word would get through to his boss Theresa May through ‘official channels’ and he’d be sent to the backbenches.

The many ways – covert and overt – in which the US, even after debts have been repaid, exerts pressure on its ‘allies’ to stay subservient is worthy of serious examination. Does the US have files on top British politicians revealing past indiscretions which can be used to turn them into toadies? “Johnson, we have certain information that on March 4, 1981, when you should have been in a Latin class at Eton, conjugating semi-deponent verbs, you were having an illicit cigarette with Carruthers Minor at the back of the bike sheds. Now step into line on Syria!”

The role of the media – particularly the extremely Atlanticist and neocon Murdoch-owned media – in hunting down foreign policy heretics and Imperial Truth Enforcement must also be considered. “There’s someone here who doesn’t support bombing Syria and regime-change in Libya! Exterminate! Exterminate!”

And we must not forget the many US-funded (and often US military-industrial complex funded) think tanks and pressure groups whose job is to make sure there’s no deviation from Atlanticism and an ‘interventionist’ foreign policy, which just happens, totally coincidentally, to be good for arms sales.

Ironically, the biggest threat to the continuance of the special doormat relationship could be an American. Donald Trump – whatever one thinks of his domestic policies (or his hairstyle) – differs from the Beltway consensus on foreign policy in that he doesn’t seem to want to provoke WW3 with Russia and doesn’t seem all that crazy about NATO.

This week we’ve had Boris Johnson taking issue with Trump’s comments on NATO. Now, there’s every possibility that Trump, if elected, will himself fall into line and do what the US military-industrial complex and other foreign policy lobby groups want him to do – i.e. to stir up more conflicts around the world, particularly in the Middle East. But what if he doesn’t? What if The Donald really does – against all the odds – manage to change US foreign policy?

Will we then have the British foreign secretary telling us that we need to leave countries that don’t threaten us alone? And that we should stop trying to provoke WW3 by continually prodding the Russian bear?

If so, it’ll be the neocons who’ll be getting concerned about a British foreign secretary following the US line, and not the rest of us. Who knows, they might even start coming up with wild conspiracy theories about 'doppelgängers'. After all, some are already calling Trump a ‘Manchurian candidate’…

Follow Neil Clark on Twitter @NeilClark66


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   
Group: Guest
I wanted to ask if anyone can identify the flying object in this footage at 59 seconds into the clip. It's only there for a couple of seconds. Is it a drone ? If so why the hell is it there ?

Edit: I can see by watching the second clip that the object I see in the first is in fact a bird (hawk or eagle), however the orb visible at the time of the explosion in clip 2 is very suspicious looking.
Video clip 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNNXP-orEQo

I realise this is off topic but I thought it would interest the same people.

EDIT: OK wow anyone else see the orb in the picture ? To the left at the top of the rocket. This picture is from a different clip (below) so the time counter shows a different time.

If you watch the video you can actually see the orb thing pass at high speed as the explosion happens.

Video clip 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BgJEXQkjNQ

P.S. I think they are lying as to the nature of the satellite.

2nd P.S. I do see all the birds but in my opinion there are also other flying objects in the clip.
..

Looks like permission denied !

..
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3055
Now, that is quite interesting FarmHand!

The mysterious craft is very similar to the ones I've
seen on two occasions.  Spherical in shape with a
bronze metallic color.

The explosion that occurs when the satellite hits
ground is puzzling too.  As well as the ongoing
explosions afterwards.  Could it be that the
satellite was actually intended to be some sort
of weapon?

Doing a frame by frame view with AVI-Demux the
strange craft first appears on frame 2147 coming
across right to left.  It moves very rapidly until frame
2152 just prior to its exit from view at the left.

Then beginning at frame 2170 something really strange
appears above the tip of the rocket and moves across
slowly from right to left as the explosion expands.

If you have a video tool capable of frame by frame
have a look.  Then at frame 2323 something appears
in the distance between the towers.  One would need
a really hi-res copy of the video to get a better idea
what the objects might be...


---------------------------
For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open.
   
Group: Guest
OK, I downloaded video clip 2 and the object appears to pass beyond at least the leftmost tower. It passes from right to left in about 7 frames or roughly 0.25 of a second.

Given that the towers are a certain distance apart and from the camera it should be possible for the objects approximate minimum speed to be calculated.

Looks way too fast to be a bird considering it is beyond the tower to far left at least. hmmm.
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3537
It's turtles all the way down
IMHO, I think Elon Musk is a bit off his rocker to be spending so much investor money on chemical rocketry, which should have died a long time ago.

If he were to invest in serious anti-gravity research he could be way ahead of the Buck Rogers mentality pack.

"Sure looks strange for a new dinosour
to be in an old dinasour's shoes
Dina Shore shoes"

From "Smithsonian Institute Blues"
b Captain Beefheart aka Don VanVliet

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuJErWbzP1Y


---------------------------
"Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy
   
Group: Guest
OK ok, if the object traverses 100 meters to cross the frame in 0.25 of one second then it would be going at roughly 1440 kph.

I'm gonna have a guess and say it was probably going at just under the speed of sound, if it was not an optical glitch of some kind that is.

SeaMonkey, it is interesting as similar things were apparently seen on 911 as well.

I'm almost dumbfounded. Why did I have to see that ?

..

I knew there was something odd about the video when I first seen it on TV but I only just decided to look closely.
I guess I'll need to step through the entire clip just to see if there is more to see.

Yes yes too many explosions, seems like.

..

I see your post grown muDped,  O0

Edit: Good that somebody got straight on to it yesterday and has made a video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cmMdYWCeAo

In this slow mo another object can be seen going from bottom left corner (ground) and apparently up through the blast area on about a 45 degree angle at 2:02 in the video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXRWFGNqAm0

..
« Last Edit: 2016-09-03, 04:17:40 by Farmhand »
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3055
This may be the explanation for what caused the
rocket to mysteriously explode.

Only in America...


---------------------------
For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open.
   
Group: Guest
Well that may explain a reason for the event, but those high speed spheres are not X-47B stealth UACV's. The spheres themselves are still a mystery, probably the most important part.

Even if it was interference in a benign program for commercial or other reasons, the spheres are the most interesting part. There are at least two objects that in my opinion show anomalous movements.

The sphere that sped past the rocket as it blew up looked to be about 1 meter or so in diameter travelling at what I estimate to be somewhere around or between 500 and 1000 kph. Not a bird and
I don't think it could be the X-47B either.

One strange object left the ground (left of screen) at about a 45 degree angle and sped up through or behind the expanding fireball in a straight line.

In this 911 video at 2:14 we can see an object coming in at a very steep angle then impacting the second tower, the object appears to have no wings and the news reporter does not seem to see it or a plane. Also at about 3:04 there is an object that flies at a fair speed from right to left just above the towers in a way I cannot imagine a chopper or plane pilot would fly in such a situation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7AJXajQVu0E

And then there is this analysis - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPKq2K2dh6k

Much progress in sphere weapon tech. since then I'm guessing.

..
   
Pages: 1 ... 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 [68] 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 ... 100
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2024-05-17, 16:20:03