Tuesday, 7 July 2015

Daraa 2011: Syria’s Islamist Insurrection in Disguise - The Truth About the Syrian Proxy War


I have seen from the beginning armed protesters in those demonstrations … they were the first to fire on the police. Very often the violence of the security forces comes in response to the brutal violence of the armed insurgents” – Jesuit priest Father Frans Van der Lugt, January 2012, Homs Syria

“The claim that armed opposition to the government has begun only recently is a complete lie. The killings of soldiers, police and civilians, often in the most brutal circumstances, have been going on virtually since the beginning.” – Professor Jeremy Salt, October 2011, Ankara Turkey

“The protest movement in Syria was overwhelmingly peaceful until September 2011” – Human Rights Watch, March 2012, Washington

A double story began on the Syrian conflict, at the very beginning of the armed violence in 2011, in the southern border town of Daraa. The first story comes from independent witnesses in Syria, such as the late Father Frans Van der Lugt in Homs. They say that armed men infiltrated the early political reform demonstrations to shoot at both police and civilians. This violence came from sectarian Islamists. The second comes from the Islamist groups (‘rebels’) and their western backers, including the Washington-based Human Rights Watch. They claim there was ‘indiscriminate’ violence from Syrian security forces to repress political rallies and that the ‘rebels’ grew out of a secular political reform movement.

Careful study of the independent evidence, however, shows that the Washington-backed ‘rebel’ story, while widespread, was part of a strategy to delegitimise the Syrian Government, with the aim of fomenting ‘regime change’. To understand this it is necessary to study the outbreak of the violence in Daraa, in March 2011. Central to that insurrection were shipments of arms from Saudi Arabia to Islamists at the al Omari mosque.

In early 2011 Syrians were well aware of a piece of history few western observers would remember: a strikingly similar Islamist insurrection took place in the town of Hama, back in 1982. Yet this was crushed within weeks by the Syrian Arab Army. Reviewing this conflict is useful because of the myths that have grown up around both insurrections.

US intelligence (DIA 1982) and the late British author Patrick Seale (1988) give independent accounts of what happened at Hama. After years of violent, sectarian attacks by Syria’s Muslim Brotherhood, by mid-1980 President Hafez al Assad had ‘broken the back’ of their sectarian rebellion, which aimed to impose a Salafi-Islamic state. One final coup plot was exposed and the Brotherhood ‘felt pressured into initiating’ an uprising in their stronghold of Hama. Seale describes the start of that violence in this way:
‘At 2am on the night of 2-3 February 1982 an army unit combing the old city fell into an ambush. Roof top snipers killed perhaps a score of soldiers … [Brotherhood leader] Abu Bakr [Umar Jawwad] gave the order for a general uprising … hundreds of Islamist fighters rose … by the morning some seventy leading Ba’athists had been slaughtered and the triumphant guerrillas declared the city ‘liberated’ (Seale 1988: 332).
However the Army responded with a huge force of about 12,000 and the battle raged for three weeks. It was a foreign-backed civil war, with some defections from the army. Seale continues:
‘As the tide turned slowly in the government’s favour, the guerrillas fell back into the old quarters … after heavy shelling, commandos and party irregulars supported by tanks moved in … many civilians were slaughtered in the prolonged mopping up, whole districts razed’ (Seale 1988: 333).
Two months later a US intelligence report said: ‘The total casualties for the Hama incident probably number about 2,000. This includes an estimated 300 to 400 members of the Muslim Brotherhood’s elite ‘Secret Apparatus’ (DIA 1982: 7). Seale recognises that the Army also suffered heavy losses. At the same time, ‘large numbers died in the hunt for the gunmen … government sympathizers estimating a mere 3,000 and critics as many as 20,000 … a figure of 5,000 to 10,000 could be close to the truth’ He adds:
‘The guerrillas were formidable opponents. They had a fortune in foreign money … [and] no fewer than 15,000 machine guns’ (Seale 1988: 335). Subsequent Muslim Brotherhood accounts have inflated the casualties, reaching up to ‘40,000 civilians’, and attempting to hide the vicious insurrection by claiming that Hafez al Assad had simply carried out a ‘civilian massacre’ (e.g. Nassar 2014). The then Syrian President blamed a large scale foreign conspiracy for the Hama insurrection. Seale observes that Hafez was ‘not paranoical’, as many US weapons were captured and foreign backing had come from several US collaborators: King Hussayn of Jordan, Lebanese Christian militias (the Israeli-aligned ‘Guardians of the Cedar’) and Saddam Hussein in Iraq (Seale 1988: 336-337).
The Hama insurrection helps us understand the Daraa violence because, once again in 2011, we saw armed Islamists using rooftop sniping against police and government officials, drawing in the armed forces, only to cry ‘civilian massacre’ when they and their collaborators came under attack from the Army. Although the US, through its allies, played an important part in the Hama insurrection, when it was all over US intelligence dryly observed that: ‘the Syrians are pragmatists who do not want a Muslim Brotherhood government’ (DIA 1982: vii).

In the case of Daraa, and the attacks that moved to Homs and surrounding areas in April 2011, the clearly stated aim was once again to topple the secular or ‘infidel-Alawi’ regime. The front-line US collaborators were Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey. The head of the Syrian Brotherhood, Muhammad Riyad Al-Shaqfa, issued a statement on 28 March which left no doubt that the group’s aim was sectarian. The enemy was ‘the secular regime’ and Brotherhood members ‘have to make sure that the revolution will be pure Islamic, and with that no other sect would have a share of the credit after its success’ (Al-Shaqfa 2011). While playing down the initial role of the Brotherhood, Sheikho confirms that it ‘went on to punch above its actual weight on the ground during the uprising … [due] to Turkish-Qatari support’, and to its general organisational capacity (Sheikho 2013). By the time there was a ‘Free Syrian Army Supreme Military Council’ in 2012 (more a weapons conduit than any sort of army command), it was two-thirds dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood (Draitser 2012). Other foreign Salafi-Islamist groups quickly joined this ‘Syrian Revolution’. A US intelligence report in August 2012, contrary to Washington’s public statements about ‘moderate rebels’, said:
‘The Salafist, the Muslim Brotherhood and AQI [Al Qaeda in Iraq, later ISIS] are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria … AQI supported the Syrian Opposition from the beginning, both ideologically and through the media’ (DIA 2012).
In February 2011 there was popular agitation in Syria, to some extent influenced by the events in Egypt and Tunisia. There were anti-government and pro-government demonstrations, and a genuine political reform movement that for several years had agitated against corruption and the Ba’ath Party monopoly. A 2005 report referred to ‘an array of reform movements slowly organizing beneath the surface’ (Ghadry 2005), and indeed the ‘many faces’ of a Syrian opposition, much of it non-Islamist, had been agitating since about that same time (Sayyid Rasas 2013). These political opposition groups deserve attention, in another discussion. However only one section of that opposition was linked to the violence that erupted in Daraa. Large anti-government demonstrations began, to be met with huge pro-government demonstrations. In early March some teenagers in Daraa were arrested for graffiti that had been copied from North Africa ‘the people want to overthrow the regime’. It was reported that they were abused by local police, President Bashar al Assad intervened, the local governor was sacked and the teenagers were released (Abouzeid 2011).

Yet the Islamist insurrection was underway, taking cover under the street demonstrations. On 11 March, several days before the violence broke out in Daraa, there were reports that Syrian forces had seized ‘a large shipment of weapons and explosives and night-vision goggles … in a truck coming from Iraq’. The truck was stopped at the southern Tanaf crossing, close to Jordan. The Syrian Government news agency SANA said the weapons were intended ‘for use in actions that affect Syria’s internal security and spread unrest and chaos.’ Pictures showed ‘dozens of grenades and pistols as well as rifles and ammunition belts’. The driver said the weapons had been loaded in Baghdad and he had been paid $5,000 to deliver them to Syria (Reuters 2011). Despite this interception, arms did reach Daraa, a border town of about 150,000 people. This is where the ‘western-rebel’ and the independent stories diverge, and diverge dramatically. The western media consensus was that protestors burned and trashed government offices, and then ‘provincial security forces opened fire on marchers, killing several’ (Abouzeid 2011). After that, ‘protestors’ staged demonstrations in front of the al-Omari mosque, but were in turn attacked.

The Syrian government, on the other hand, said that armed attacks had begun on security forces, killing police and civilians, along with the burning of government offices. There was foreign corroboration of this account. While its headline blamed security forces for killing ‘protesters’, the British Daily Mail (2011) showed pictures of guns, AK47 rifles and hand grenades that security forces had recovered after storming the al-Omari mosque. The paper noted reports that ‘an armed gang’ had opened fire on an ambulance, killing ‘a doctor, a paramedic and a policeman’. Media channels in neighbouring countries did report on the killing of Syrian police, on 17-18 March. On 21 March a Lebanese news report observed that ‘Seven policemen were killed during clashes between the security forces and protesters in Syria’ (YaLibnan 2011), while an Israel National News report said ‘Seven police officers and at least four demonstrators in Syria have been killed … and the Baath party headquarters and courthouse were torched’ (Queenan 2011). These police had been targeted by rooftop snipers.

Even in these circumstances the Government was urging restraint and attempting to respond to the political reform movement. President Assad’s adviser, Dr Bouthaina Shaaban, told a news conference that the President had ordered ‘that live ammunition should not be fired, even if the police, security forces or officers of the state were being killed’. Assad proposed to address the political demands, such as the registration of political parties, removing emergency rules and allowing greater media freedoms (al-Khalidi 2011). None of that seemed to either interest or deter the Islamist insurrection.

Several reports, including video reports, observed rooftop snipers firing at crowds and police, during funerals of those already killed. It was said to be ‘unclear who was firing at whom’ (Al Jazeera 2011a), as ‘an unknown armed group on rooftops shot at protesters and security forces’ (Maktabi 2011). Yet Al Jazeera (2011b) owned by the Qatari monarchy, soon strongly suggested that that the snipers were pro-government. ‘President Bashar al Assad has sent thousands of Syrian soldiers and their heavy weaponry into Derra for an operation the regime wants nobody in the word to see’. However the Al Jazeera suggestion that secret pro-government snipers were killing ‘soldiers and protestors alike’ was illogical and out of sequence. The armed forces came to Daraa precisely because police had been shot and killed.

Saudi Arabia, a key US regional ally, had armed and funded extremist Salafist Sunni sects to move against the secular government. Saudi official Anwar Al-Eshki later confirmed to BBC television that his country had sent arms to Daraa and to the al-Omari mosque (Truth Syria 2012). From exile in Saudi Arabia, Salafi Sheikh Adnan Arour called for a holy war against the liberal Alawi Muslims, who were said to dominate the Syrian government: ‘by Allah we shall mince [the Alawites] in meat grinders and feed their flesh to the dogs’ (MEMRITV 2011). The Salafist aim was a theocratic state or caliphate. The genocidal slogan ‘Christians to Beirut, Alawites to the grave’ became widespread, a fact reported by the North American media as early as May 2011 (e.g. Blanford 2011). Islamists from the FSA Farouq brigade would soon act on these threats (Crimi 2012). Canadian analyst Michel Chossudovsky (2011) concluded:
‘The deployment of armed forces including tanks in Daraa [was] directed against an organised armed insurrection, which has been active in the border city since March 17-18.’
After those first few days in Daraa the killing of Syrian security forces continued, but went largely unreported outside Syria. Nevertheless, independent analyst Sharmine Narwani wrote about the scale of this killing in early 2012 and again in mid-2014. An ambush and massacre of soldiers took place near Daraa in late March or early April. An army convoy was stopped by an oil slick on a valley road between Daraa al-Mahata and Daraa al-Balad and the trucks were machine gunned. Estimates of soldier deaths, from government and opposition sources ranged from 18 to 60. A Daraa resident said these killings were not reported because: ‘At that time, the government did not want to show they are weak and the opposition did not want to show they are armed’. Anti-Syrian blogger, Nizar Nayouf, records this massacre as taking place in the last week of March. Another anti-Government writer, Rami Abdul Rahman (based in England, and calling himself the ‘Syrian Observatory of Human Rights’) says:
‘It was on the first of April and about 18 or 19 security forces … were killed’ (Narwani 2014). Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal Mikdad, himself a resident of Daraa, confirmed that: ‘this incident was hidden by the government … as an attempt not to antagonize or not to raise emotions and to calm things down – not to encourage any attempt to inflame emotions which may lead to escalation of the situation’ (Narwani 2014).
Yet the significance of denying armed anti-Government killings was that, in the western media, all deaths were reported as (a) victims of the Army and (b) civilians. For well over six months, when a body count was mentioned in the international media, it was usually considered acceptable to suggest these were all ‘protestors’ killed by the Syrian Army. For example, a Reuters report on 24 March said Daraa’s main hospital had received ‘the bodies of at least 37 protestors killed on Wednesday’ (Khalidi 2011). Notice that all the dead had become ‘protestors’, despite earlier reports on the killing of a number of police and health workers.

Another nineteen soldiers were gunned down on 25 April, also near Daraa. Narwani obtained their names and details from Syria’s Defence Ministry, and corroborated these details from another document from a non-government source. Throughout April 2011 she calculates that eighty-eight Syrian soldiers were killed ‘by unknown shooters in different areas across Syria’ (Narwani 2014). She went on to refute claims that the soldiers killed were ‘defectors’, shot by the Syrian army for refusing to fire on civilians. The Washington based group Human Rights Watch, referring to interviews with 50 unnamed ‘activists’, claimed that soldiers killed at this time were all ‘defectors’, murdered by the Army (HRW 2011b). Yet the funerals of loyal officers, shown on the internet at that time, were distinct. Even Rami Abdul Rahman, keen to blame the Army for killing civilians, said ‘this game of saying the Army is killing defectors for leaving – I never accepted this’ (Narwani 2014). Nevertheless the highly charged reports were confusing, in Syria as well as outside.

The violence spread north, with the assistance of Islamist fighters from Lebanon, reaching Baniyas and areas around Homs. On 10 April nine soldiers were shot in a bus ambush in Baniyas. In Homs, on April 17, General Abdo Khodr al-Tallawi was killed with his two sons and a nephew, and Syrian commander Iyad Kamel Harfoush was gunned down near his home. Two days later, off-duty Colonel Mohammad Abdo Khadour was killed in his car (Narwani 2014). North American commentator Joshua Landis (2011a) reported the death of his wife’s cousin, one of the soldiers in Baniyas.

Al Jazeera, the principal Middle East media channel backing the Muslim Brotherhood, blacked out these attacks, as also the reinforcement provided by armed foreigners. Former Al Jazeera journalist Ali Hashem was one of many who resigned from the Qatar-owned station (RT 2012), complaining of deep bias over their presentation of the violence in Syria. Hashem had footage of armed men arriving from Lebanon, but this was censored by his Qatari managers. ‘In a resignation letter I was telling the executive … it was like nothing was happening in Syria.’ He thought the ‘Libyan revolution’ was the turning point for Al Jazeera, the end of its standing as a credible media group (Hashem 2012).

Provocateurs were at work. Tunisian jihadist ‘Abu Qusay’ later admitted he had been a prominent ‘Syrian rebel’ charged with ‘destroying and desecrating Sunni mosques’, including by scrawling the graffiti ‘There is no God but Bashar’, a blasphemy to devout Muslims. This was then blamed on the Syrian Army, with the aim of creating Sunni defections from the Army. ‘Abu Qusay’ had been interviewed by foreign journalists who did not notice he was not Syrian (Eretz Zen 2014).

Journalist Nir Rosen, whose reports were generally against the Syrian Government, also criticised the western consensus over the early violence:
‘The issue of defectors is a distraction. Armed resistance began long before defections started … Every day the opposition gives a death toll, usually without any explanation … Many of those reported killed are in fact dead opposition fighters but … described in reports as innocent civilians killed by security forces … and every day members of the Syrian Army, security agencies … are also killed by anti-regime fighters’ (Rosen 2012).
A numbers game was being played to delegitimise the Syrian Government (‘The Regime’) and the Syrian Army (‘Assad loyalists’), suggesting they were responsible for all the violence. Just as NATO forces were about to bomb Libya and overthrow the Libyan Government, US voices began to demand that President Assad step down. The Brookings Institution (Shaikh 2011) claimed the President had ‘lost the legitimacy to remain in power in Syria’. US Senators John McCain, Lindsay Graham and Joe Lieberman said it was time ‘to align ourselves unequivocally with the Syrian people in their peaceful demand for a democratic government’ (FOX News 2011). The big powers began to demand yet another ‘regime change’.

In June, US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton dismissed the idea that ‘foreign instigators’ had been at work, saying that ‘the vast majority of casualties have been unarmed civilians’ (Clinton 2011). In fact, as Clinton knew very well, her Saudi Arabian allies had armed extremists from the very beginning. Her casualty assertion was also wrong. The United Nations (which would later abandon its body count) estimated from several sources that, by early 2012, there were more than 5,000 casualties, and that deaths in the first year of conflict included 478 police and 2,091 from the military and security forces (OHCHR 2012: 2; Narwani 2014). That is, more than half the casualties in the first year were those of the Syrian security forces. That independent calculation was not reflected in western media reports. ‘Watchdog’ NGOs such as Human Rights Watch, along with US columnists (e.g. Allaf 2012), continued to claim, well into 2012, that Syrian security forces had been massacring ‘unarmed protestors’, that the Syrian people ‘had no choice’ but to take up arms, and that this ‘protest movement’ had been ‘overwhelmingly peaceful until September 2011’ (HRW 2011a, HRW 2012). In fact, the political reform movement had been driven off the streets by Salafi-Islamist gunmen, over the course of March and April.

In June reporter Hala Jaber (2011) observed that about five thousand people turned up for a demonstration at Ma’arrat al-Numan, a small town in north-west Syria, between Aleppo and Hama. She says several ‘protestors’ had been shot the week before, while trying to block the road between Damascus and Aleppo. After some negotiations which reduced the security forces in the town, ‘men with heavy beards in cars and pick-ups with no registration plates’ with ‘rifles and rocket-propelled grenades’ began shooting at the reduced numbers of security forces. A military helicopter was sent to support the security forces. After this clash ‘four policemen and 12 of their attackers were dead or dying. Another 20 policemen were wounded’. Officers who escaped the fight were hidden by some of the tribal elders who had participated in the original demonstration. When the next ‘demonstration for democracy’ took place, the following Friday, ‘only 350 people turned up’, mostly young men and some bearded militants (Jaber 2011). Five thousand protestors had been reduced to 350, after the Salafist attacks.

After months of media manipulations, disguising the Islamist insurrection, Syrians such as Samer al Akhras, a young man from a Sunni family, who used to watch Al Jazeera because he preferred it to state TV, became convinced to back the Syrian government. He saw first-hand the fabrication of reports on Al Jazeera and wrote, in late June 2011:
‘I am a Syrian citizen and I am a human. After 4 months of your fake freedom … You say peaceful demonstration and you shoot our citizen. From today … I am [now] a Sergeant in the Reserve Army. If I catch anyone … in any terrorist organization working on the field in Syria I am gonna shoot you as you are shooting us. This is our land not yours, the slaves of American fake freedom’ (al Akhras 2011).
Notes: [see link directly below for details]
http://www.globalresearch.ca/daraa-2011-syrias-islamist-insurrection-in-disguise/5460547#

This article from Global Research is very important because it chronicles the events at the start of the Syrian Proxy war and shows how outside support for extremist groups caused, and escalated, the conflict.

[Posted at the SpookyWeather blog, July 7th, 2015.]

The MH17 Airline Crash: Methodology of an International Cover-Up


Numerous journalists, the author included, have made considerable efforts to elicit independently verifiable evidence from all of the involved parties. This includes mails and phone calls to relevant ministries in Ukraine, the USA, UK, Russia, Australia, Malaysia, and the Dutch Safety Board in The Netherlands.
 
All requests to provide independently verifiable data have remained unanswered. That includes requests for a certified copy of radar data released by the Russian Ministry of Defense, certified copies of communications between Ukrainian Air Traffic Controllers and the flight crew on board the downed Boeing 777-200, and not least a certified copy of the Comma Separated Variable (CSV) file from the downed Boeing 777-200’s flight data recorder.
 
To mention but a few examples that demonstrate the significance of the need for full transparency. The DSB published a “transcript” of ATC – Flight Crew communications. Investigative journalists have, in other words, no possibility to see whether the audio has been tempered with or for that sake, if the voices even are consistent with those of the flight crew.
 
Dennis Cimino, an expert on Flight Data Recorders discovered that a FOIA request pertaining the flight data recorder data from American Airlines Flight 77 on September 11, 2001 were from a “bench unit”.

That is, the data had been falsified – to say the very least. Journalists and the international flying public are expected to “take the DSB’s word for that it works independently and follows professional standards, ICAO guidelines and ethical standards”.
 
The radar data that were released by the Russian Ministry of Defense could as well have been computer generated after the fact. What independent journalists have to demand is access to certified, independently testable data that would stand up in a court of law.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-mh17-airline-crash-methodology-of-an-international-cover-up/5460126

The Russian radar data of the incident, that showed fighter sized aircraft flying close to MH17 is backed up by witnesses who appeared on BBC Russia (see below). What is missing are pictures from the ground that show BUK missile smoke trails (from the alleged murder weapon), which would have been seen for many miles, plus US satellite images of the area that would reveal the same. The absence of this BUK missile evidence is telling.

Related Info:

Deleted BBC Russia MH17 report about 'Ukrainian military jets' (Eng Subs)


[Posted at the SpookyWeather blog, July 7th, 2015.]

RECAP: 7/7 Mind the Gap


Documentary detailing the gaps in the official story of the 7/7 London Bombings that demand further attention. This film, presented by ex-Mi5 whistleblower David Shayler, argues the need for an Independant Public Inquiry into 7/7 and the surrounding events.


Part 1. Part 2. Part 3. Part 4.

This excellent documentary deals with the London 7/7 bombings and opens with a rundown of the lies that started the Iraq war, a brief review of the 911 false flag terror attacks, and the involvement of Western intelligence services in past incidents.

Most people don't realise there are HUGE problems with the official story about the 7/7 bombings. For anyone who has bothered to look at the evidence, it becomes clear that the official narrative is highly suspect and completely false with regard to certain critical aspects of the story. This documentary is highly recommended viewing.

Remember, the threat of false flag terror attack will always be with us until these crimes are fully exposed and justice served.

[Posted at the SpookyWeather blog, July 7th, 2015.]

The 7/7 Train Times from Luton to King's Cross Disprove the Official Story


The well-known picture of the four ‘bombers’ entering Luton station on the morning of July 7th was released by the police on July 16th. It apparently shows them catching the 7.40am train, as they announced at the press conference.

The image is time and date-stamped as 07.21:54, a few seconds shy of 7.22am.

The police had earlier inspected CCTV pictures of them at King’s Cross mainline station at 8.26 am, or so we were told. The Luton to King’s Cross Thameslink service normally takes 36 minutes, and so the 7.40am from Luton would usually arrive into King’s Cross at 8.16am. This would have fitted in neatly with these two timed CCTV images given out by the police.
-----------------------------------------
It turned out however that all trains were severely delayed on July 7th, due to problems with overhead lines in the Mill Hill Area.

These facts only emerged weeks after the event, when two researchers visited Luton station on the morning of 23rd August, and conducted on-platform interviews with commuters.

Computer records of the train timetables were kindly made available both by Marie Bernes at Customer Relations at King's Cross, and from Chris Hudson, Communications Manager of Thameslink Rail, at Luton station.

That gave the following Luton to King's Cross timetable for the morning of July 7th:



It is evident from this table, that this 07.48 train did not arrive in King’s Cross until after the two of the underground trains involved had already departed King's Cross underground station.

Was any train feasible? Let us consider an earlier train, which left Luton station at 07.25, and arrived into King’s Cross Thameslink at 08.23 am; thus, its journey took 58 minutes. This scenario would give the four young men barely three minutes to walk up the stairs at Luton, buy their tickets in the morning rush-hour and then get to the platform. Some have suggested that Lindsay German from Aylesbury had arrived early and bought the four tickets in advance (day-returns at 22 pounds each), to make this feasible. But, from King’s Cross Thameslink, it takes a good seven minutes to walk through the long, Underground tube passage which includes a ticket barrier, to reach the main King’s Cross station, in the morning rush-hour with large rucksacks – in no way could they have been captured on the 08.26am alleged CCTV picture.

Thus, no train that morning is capable of getting a passenger into both of the CCTV images. This could be part of the reason why the police can never release the images they claim to have, of the four at King’s Cross.

This major breakdown of the official story came about through the testimony of a commuter who wished to remain anonymous: she arrived at Luton station that morning at 7.25am, and testified that she had no train to catch until 7.58am, because the 7.30am and 7.40am trains from Luton were cancelled on July 7th. She could only get a slow train at 7.58am from platform 3 to King's Cross, which didn't arrive there until 8.43am. It was so packed that many could not get onto the train at Luton*. (The 07.30 was delayed in arriving into Luton that morning and came into platform 4, whereas the London trains normally come to platforms 1 or 3, which is why she believed it had been cancelled.)
http://julyseventh.co.uk/july-7-luton-kings-cross-train-times.html

The official story, as it stands, MUST be false.

And with terror drills at the exact same time and place as the real bombings, with the bombers buying return tickets and arguing with shopkeepers, plus indications the bombs themselves had been planted under the trains, this all makes for a very weak official account.

[Posted at the SpookyWeather blog, July 7th, 2015.]

Story about Anniversary of Israel's attack on Gaza - A Complaint Sent to ABC News Australia


Dear ABC News,

The reporter (in a story that aired on 5/7/2015) stated that the cause of the 2014 Gaza conflict was still disputed. From an objective point of view this is demonstrably untrue. The cause of the fighting is only 'disputed' if we believe the narrative put by the Israeli Government - which says they were responding to rocket attacks.

The full sequence of events is that three Israeli teenagers had been killed in the West Bank - and that this was known to local authorities at the time. They admitted this fact, and also the fact that those responsible, in their opinion, were not affiliated with Hamas.

Despite such information, the Israeli Government pretended that the killed teenagers had been kidnapped, and used the situation as a pretext to blame Hamas, whereupon they arrested and killed a number of Palestinians in Gaza during a wide ranging 'search'. 

This aggressive action provoked the rockets from Hamas.

The war was basically an act of 'collective punishment' by the Israelis upon a trapped population that had nothing to do with those recent murders in the West Bank.

A similar thing happened when the Israelis attacked Lebanon in 2006. They said they were responding to an unprovoked attack by Hezbollah. According to their version of events, a border patrol, operating in Israeli territory, was ambushed in a cross-border raid. However, many news outlets reported that this attack had occurred well inside Lebanese territory (at Aitaa al-Chaab), and that the bodies of the dead were unable to be recovered immediately because of that fact (they were on the Lebanese side of the border). 

Another instance of Israeli Government responsibility for initiating violence, this time upon Gaza, occurred in 2008 when a number of Palestinian officials were killed in a preemptive strike that lead to the launching of Hamas rockets in response. Before those killings Hamas had honoured a ceasefire agreement and did not fire any rockets at Israeli territory for a number of months.

The purpose of these other examples is that it reveals a pattern of violence instigated by the Israelis. This does not absolve Hamas or Hezbollah of their own violent actions.

I ask that you stop misleading your viewers with your context bereft reports. You are contributing to the 'cycle' of violence by keeping the real causes of war and suffering hidden.

I have a good understanding of the attack on Gaza (and Lebanon), because I chronicled the event(s) in posts on my news blog.

There is a clear timeline that reveals what occurred and what side carries the greatest burden of guilt. You must stop airing reports that abrogates the blame for the violence. I ask that you refresh yourselves with the rules of International Law applied to the Gaza situation. There will be no peaceful outcome if you keep killing truth with misleading news bulletins.

ps. The ABC has a similar problem, of obfuscating the causes of conflict, through your superficial reporting on the Syrian Proxy war which you wrongly label as a civil war. You neglected to fully inform the public that the internal conflict within that country (a reform movement) was hijacked by violent external forces at a very early stage. A recently declassified US Defence Intelligence Agency report from Aug 2012 describes support for the leading fighting groups, they were all extremist in nature, as coming from "the West, Gulf Countries, and Turkey".  I have yet to see an accurate account from the ABC that describes this deplorable situation properly.
___________________________ 

Related Info:



[Posted at the SpookyWeather blog, July 7th, 2015.]

Varoufakis Resigns as Greek Finance Minister


After securing a 'no' vote at Greek referendum on bailout, Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis resigned, saying it would help Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras negotiate a better deal with foreign creditors.



The Greek Government needs to protect their citizens' bank deposits, ruling that confiscation by financial institutions is theft, and then issue a silver-backed Drachma that will not be impacted by currency deflation. This could be done through bank nationalisation. The capital needed for such actions (so that they can issue a silver backed Drachma), would be negotiated in a deal made with Russia and/or China.

The Greeks should then, or at the same time, default on their outstanding debt - pointing to the odious nature of the accumulated billions, and the fraud committed that enabled the country to enter the Eurozone.  

Related Info:

How Europe Cancelled Germany’s Debt in 1953


[Posted at the SpookyWeather blog, July 7th, 2015.]

Monday, 6 July 2015

What Americans Don't Know About Eastern Ukraine


It’s always interesting for me to observe the reaction of Americans and Western Europeans when they learn where I’m from. Many just don’t say anything. Many regurgitate something incoherent about Putin’s “imperial” ambitions, “the Boeing” that was shot down over Eastern Ukraine last year, and “that politician guy that got killed in Moscow.” Finally, there are those (unfortunately, a minority) who tell me that things must be more complicated than they are portrayed in the news and genuinely want to know what I think.

Things are definitely much more complicated than they’re portrayed in the news. I’ve had a chance to observe mainstream American, Canadian, and British media for quite some time now, and I’m amazed that so few people are appalled by the crudeness of propaganda that is fed to them, no matter whether the source is Fox News, CNN, or the BBC. Just like that Wal-Mart truck driver that stopped to help a stranded motorist doesn’t make Wal-Mart a great place to shop, the Pentagon Papers don’t make The New York Times a progressive newspaper. Neither does covering the Snowden case make The Guardian a source you should now trust and worship.

When I can hear explosions in the background in the middle of a phone conversation with my relatives who are hunkering down with their young children in the hallway of their apartment (“safe” because it’s away from the windows) while being shelled by Ukrainian artillery, and the “progressive” sources mentioned above pontificate about Russia’s “aggression” in Ukraine, call for more sanctions, and do not say a word about the massive devastation and suffering the US- and Europe-backed regime in Kiev has caused in just one year in one of the most urbanized parts of Europe, I feel disappointment and helplessness. Do these talking heads have no shame? Do those who listen to them have no brain? Opportunities to question, explore, and learn are all around you. Why not use them?

How many of you know that the cities of Donetsk (once home to over one million people) and Gorlovka (Horlivka; once home to more than 300 thousand people) have been shelled by the Ukrainian military pretty much daily throughout the month of May and in the first half of June - despite the so-called ceasefire?

How many of you know that American soldiers are actually in Ukraine training the Ukrainian National Guard - the troops that are then deployed to the East of the country? (Do a quick search, and even your “trustworthy” mainstream sources will confirm that - in a non-intrusive sort of way, of course.)

How many of you remember the context of Victoria Nuland’s “Fuck the EU” comment in her conversation with the US ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt?

How many of you know that John Brennan, director of the CIA, visited Ukraine in April of last year, immediately after which Ukraine’s “counter-terrorist operation” began in the rebellious East of the country? (Do another quick search, and your “trustworthy” mainstream sources will again confirm that - also in a non-intrusive sort of way.)

How many of you can imagine Russia putting its navy ships in the Gulf of Mexico, installing an anti-American regime in Canada, and holding military exercises just south of the US-Mexican border? How many of you can imagine what the American reaction to that would be? How ridiculous would the EU look if it imposed sanctions on the US? (Well, the EU looks just as ridiculous with all its current posturing and double standards.)

How many of you can imagine US and European sanctions against Saudi Arabia for its actions in Yemen? How many of your “trustworthy” sources use the word “aggression” when describing Saudi Arabia’s actions?

It took crash investigators a few days to learn what was going on in and around the cockpit of Germanwings Flight 9525, which crashed over the Alps less than three months ago. How many of you wonder what ever happened to the black boxes of the Malasia Airlines Flight 17 now that almost a year has passed since the plane was shot down over Ukraine? (It seemed so clear whom to blame back then, didn’t it?)

You most definitely heard about “that politician guy that got killed in Moscow.” How many of you know about a whole number of “politician guys” that have “committed suicide” in Ukraine? Other than stumbling on an occasional blurb, you’d really have to look to see what’s going on.

How many of you know about Oles Buzina, a pro-Russian journalist, who got murdered in Kiev just two months ago?

Finally, have you ever wondered who actually benefits from this war in Ukraine? Do you really think it’s Russia, now stuck with hundreds of thousands of refugees from Ukraine, a rabidly russophobic regime next door, and NATO bristling with all its fancy glory literally on Russia’s borders? Is it the “separatists” (or Ukrainians alike), whose most industrialized region is now in ruins? Or is there perhaps another party that’s meddling in all this? Use your imagination. May curiosity be your friend.
http://captainfifteen.blogspot.com/2015/06/its-always-interesting-for-me-to.html

Great article on the situation in Ukraine.

[Posted at the SpookyWeather blog, July 6th, 2015.]

Carving Out Kurdistan - The US/NATO Plan To Break Up Syria and Iraq


Over the last few months, Americans who pay attention to current events have been treated to a surprising barrage of praise coming from the mainstream media regarding the Kurdish fighters in Syria. The Kurds have been presented as true freedom fighters and an opposition that the US can justify supporting, at least at some level, against ISIS.

Much of this praise is well-deserved. Kurdish fighters have indeed fought bravely against ISIS, dealing blow after blow to the Western-backed terrorist group on a number of occasions. Indeed, the Kurds have fought so skillfully that the
US was quick to steal credit for a high-profile operation that was actually conducted by Syrian and Iraqi Kurds – the rescue of trapped Yazidis on the top of Mt. Sinjar.

The resolve that Kurdish fighters showed in their fight against ISIS at Ayn al-Arab (aka Kobane) was extraordinary as was their understanding of the necessity for coordination and cooperation with the Syrian government with regards to issues containing mutual strategic self-interest for both parties.

The West, however, particularly NATO spear-headed by the United States has long had much a much different interest in the Kurdish fighters and their relationship to the region and the conflict currently raging there. Indeed, the Kurds have long acted as a force which the US has been able to harness to stir up destabilization in the Iraqi, Syrian, Turkish, and Iranian sphere. Such is the case now, as the US and NATO powers seek to use the Kurdish desire for an independent country – Kurdistan – as a destabilizing force against Syria, Iraq, and Iran and a galvanizing force for the Turks. Whether or not the Kurds will ever obtain such an independent state, however, remains to be seen.
Regardless, the US has been attempting to use the fighting force of the Kurds for their geopolitical aims – whatever those aims might be in relation to the creation or not of an independent Kurdistan.
http://www.activistpost.com/2015/07/carving-out-kurdistan-usnato-plan-to.html\

[Posted at the SpookyWeather blog, July 6th, 2015.]

UNESCO Warns of "Culture Cleansing" Carried Out by ISIL - ft. 'Syrian Girl'


The United Nations’ cultural agency calls for an international campaign against what it describes as the culture cleansing being carried out by ISIL Takfiri terrorists.



Syrian Girl places the destruction within a geopolitical narrative where the west and Israel have supported groups that engage in such culture destroying activities.

[Posted at the SpookyWeather blog, July 6th, 2015.]

Greece — The One Biggest Lie You Are Being Told By The Media


Every single mainstream media has the following narrative for the economic crisis in Greece: the government spent too much money and went broke; the generous banks gave them money, but Greece still can’t pay the bills because it mismanaged the money that was given. It sounds quite reasonable, right?

Except that it is a big fat lie … not only about Greece, but about other European countries such as Spain, Portugal, Italy and Ireland who are all experiencing various degrees of austerity. It was also the same big, fat lie that was used by banks and corporations to exploit many Latin American, Asian and African countries for many decades.

Greece did not fail on its own. It was made to fail.

In summary, the banks wrecked the Greek government, and then deliberately pushed it into unsustainable debt … while revenue-generating public assets were sold off to oligarchs and international corporations. The rest of the article is about how and why.

If you are a fan of mafia movies, you know how the mafia would take over a popular restaurant. First, they would do something to disrupt the business – stage a murder at the restaurant or start a fire. When the business starts to suffer, the Godfather would generously offer some money as a token of friendship. In return, Greasy Thumb takes over the restaurant’s accounting, Big Joey is put in charge of procurement, and so on. Needless to say, it’s a journey down a spiral of misery for the owner who will soon be broke and, if lucky, alive.

Now, let’s map the mafia story to international finance in four stages.

Stage 1: The first and foremost reason that Greece got into trouble was the “Great Financial Crisis” of 2008 that was the brainchild of Wall Street and international bankers. If you remember, banks came up with an awesome idea of giving subprime mortgages to anyone who can fog a mirror. They then packaged up all these ticking financial bombs and sold them as “mortgage-backed securities” for a huge profit to various financial entities in countries around the world.

A big enabler of this criminal activity was another branch of the banking system, the group of rating agencies – S&P, Fitch and Moody’s – who gave stellar ratings to these destined-to-fail financial products. Unscrupulous politicians such as Tony Blair joined Goldman Sachs and peddled these dangerous securities to pension funds and municipalities and countries around Europe. Banks and Wall Street gurus made hundreds of billions of dollars in this scheme.

But this was just Stage 1 of their enormous scam. There was much more profit to be made in the next three stages!

Stage 2 is when the financial time bombs exploded. Commercial and investment banks around the world started collapsing in a matter of weeks. Governments at local and regional level saw their investments and assets evaporate. Chaos everywhere!

Vultures like Goldman Sachs and other big banks profited enormously in three ways: one, they could buy other banks such as Lehman brothers and Washington Mutual for pennies on the dollar. Second, more heinously, Goldman Sachs and insiders such as John Paulson (who recently donated $400 million to Harvard) had made bets that these securities would blow up. Paulson made billions, and the media celebrated his acumen. (For an analogy, imagine the terrorists betting on 9/11 and profiting from it.) Third, to scrub salt in the wound, the big banks demanded a bailout from the very citizens whose lives the bankers had ruined! Bankers have chutzpah. In the U.S., they got hundreds of billions of dollars from the taxpayers and trillions from the Federal Reserve Bank which is nothing but a front group for the bankers.

In Greece, the domestic banks got more than $30 billion of bailout from the Greek people. Let that sink in for a moment – the supposedly irresponsible Greek government had to bail out the hardcore capitalist bankers.

Stage 3 is when the banks force the government to accept massive debts. For a biology metaphor, consider a virus or a bacteria. All of them have unique strategies to weaken the immune system of the host. One of the proven techniques used by the parasitic international bankers is to downgrade the bonds of a country. And that’s exactly what the bankers did, starting at the end of 2009. This immediately makes the interest rates (“yields”) on the bonds go up, making it more and more expensive for the country to borrow money or even just roll over the existing bonds.

From 2009 to mid 2010, the yields on 10-year Greek bonds almost tripled! This cruel financial assault brought the Greek government to its knees, and the banksters won their first debt deal of a whopping 110 billion Euros.

The banks also control the politics of nations. In 2011, when the Greek prime minister refused to accept a second massive bailout, the banks forced him out of the office and immediately replaced him with the Vice President of ECB (European Central Bank)! No elections needed. Screw democracy. And what would this new guy do? Sign on the dotted line of every paperwork that the bankers bring in.

(By the way, the very next day, the exact same thing happened in Italy where the Prime Minister resigned, only to be replaced by a banker/economist puppet. Ten days later, Spain had a premature election where a “technocrat” banker puppet won the election).

The puppet masters had the best month ever in November 2011.

Few months later, in 2012, the exact bond market manipulation was used when the banksters turned up the Greek bonds’ yields to 50%!!! This financial terrorism immediately had the desired effect: The Greek parliament agreed to a second massive bailout, even larger than the first one.

Now, here is another fact that most people don’t understand. The loans are not just simple loans like you would get from a credit card or a bank. These loans come with very special strings attached that demand privatization of a country’s assets. If you have seen Godfather III, you would remember Hyman Roth, the investor who was carving up Cuba among his friends. Replace Hyman Roth with Goldman Sachs or IMF (International Monetary Fund) or ECB, and you get the picture.

Stage 4: Now, the rape and humiliation of a nation begin. For the debt that was forced upon them, Greece had to sell many of its profitable assets to oligarchs and international corporations. And privatizations are ruthless, involving everything and anything that is profitable. In Greece, privatization included water, electricity, post offices, airport services, national banks, telecommunication, port authorities (which is huge in a country that is a world leader in shipping) etc.
In addition to that, the banker tyrants also get to dictate every single line item in the government’s budget. Want to cut military spending? NO! Want to raise tax on the oligarchs or big corporations? NO! Such micro-management is non-existent in any other creditor-debtor relationship.

So what happens after privatization and despotism under bankers? Of course, the government’s revenue goes down and the debt increases further. How do you “fix” that? Of course, cut spending! Lay off public workers, cut minimum wage, cut pensions (same as our social security), cut public services, and raise taxes on things that would affect the 99% but not the 1%. For example, pension has been cut in half and sales tax increase to more than 20%. All these measures have resulted in Greece going through a financial calamity that is worse than the Great Depression of the U.S. in the 1930s.

Of course, the ever-manipulative bankers demand immediate privatization of all media which means that the country now gets photogenic TV anchors who spew propaganda every day and tell the people that crooked and greedy banksters are saviors; and slavery under austerity is so much better than the alternative.

If every Greek person had known the truth about austerity, they wouldn’t have fallen for this. Same goes for Spain, Italy, Portugal, Ireland and other countries going through austerity.The sad aspect of all this is that these are not unique strategies. Since World War II, these predatory practices have been used countless times by the IMF and the World Bank in Latin America, Asia, and Africa.

This is the essence of the New World Order — a world owned by a handful of corporations and banks.

So, it’s time for the wonderful people of Greece to rise up like Zeus and say NO (“OXI” in Greece) to the greedy puppet masters, unpatriotic oligarchs, parasitic bankers and corrupt politicians.

Dear Greece, know that the world is praying for you. Vote NO to austerity. Say YES to freedom, independence, self-government, and democracy. Yes, democracy, the word that was invented by YOU!
https://truthandsatire.wordpress.com/2015/07/03/greece-the-one-biggest-lie-you-are-being-told-by-the-media/

 A MUST READ article !

The Greek Government bailed out the banks to the tune of 30 billion initially during the financial crisis.

[Posted at the SpookyWeather blog, July 6th, 2015.]

How Europe Cancelled Germany’s Debt in 1953


The 1953 London Debt Accords show that European leaders know how to resolve a debt crisis in the interests of justice and recovery. Here are four key lessons for Greece’s debt crisis today.

On 27 February 1953, an agreement was signed in London which resulted in the cancellation of half of Germany’s (then West Germany’s) debt: 15 billion out of a total of 30 billion Deutschmarks.*

Those cancelling the debt included the United States, the UK and France, along with Greece, Spain and Pakistan – countries which are major debtors today. The agreement also included private individuals and companies. In the years following 1953 other countries signed up to cancel German debts, including Egypt, Argentina, Belgian Congo (today the Democratic Republic of Congo), Cambodia, Cameroon, New Guinea, and the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland (today Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe). (1)

The German debt came from two periods: before and after World War II. Roughly half of it was from loans Germany had taken out in the 1920s and early 1930s, before the Nazis came to power, which were used to meet payments ordered by the Treaty of Versailles in 1919. They were a legacy of the huge reparations forced on the country after defeat in World War I. The other half of the debt originated from reconstruction following the end of World War II.

By 1952, Germany’s foreign-owed debt was around 25% of national income. This is relatively low compared to debtor countries today: Spain, Greece, Ireland and Portugal’s debts to foreign lenders are all over 80% of GDP. But West Germany had to undertake huge reconstruction following the war, and foreign currency with which to pay foreign-owed debts was scarce. The German delegation at the conference convincingly argued that its debt payments would rise sharply in the near future, and that this would significantly hinder reconstruction. Following the debt cancellation, West Germany experienced an ‘economic miracle’ with large-scale reconstruction, and high rates of growth in income and exports. This stability contributed to peace and prosperity in western Europe.

Creditors to West Germany were keen to stabilise the country’s politics and economics, so that it could be a ‘bulwark against communism’. This unique political reasoning led to creditors adopting a much more enlightened approach to dealing with a country’s debt, which has unfortunately not been repeated in debt crises of the last thirty years – in Latin America and Africa (1980s and 1990s), East Asia (mid-1990s), Russia and Argentina (turn of the millennium) and Europe today. Through these crises, Germany has been a creditor, as can be seen most starkly in the current European debt crisis.
http://wakeupfromyourslumber.com/europe-cancelled-germanys-debt-1953/


[Posted at the SpookyWeather blog, July 6th, 2015.]

Leaked: New F-35 Fighter Jet Beaten by F-16 From 1970s


Decades in the making, already the most expensive military project in history - and still US F-35 figher jet isn't ready. Some are now pointing to signs that the plane's appeal is wearing off, despite the efforts of its manufacturer.



Various defence bloggers had pointed out years previously that the F-35, as an air combat platform is a dud. If it is detected via longwave radar or Infra Red, it will be subject to missile attacks which means the F-35 will need to turn rapidly to avoid being shot down. Other stealth fighters from Russia or China, and even existing fighter aircraft using jamming equipment, will more than likely come within close range where dogfighting ability will be needed. The flying performance of this aircraft is akin to designs that appeared in the 1960s.

[Posted at the SpookyWeather blog, July 6th, 2015.]

Sunday, 5 July 2015

CrossTalk: Cold War Redux (ft. Chris Hedges)


Over the past year at CrossTalk we have asked guests many times whether we face the specter of a new Cold War. Today it is all too obvious there is a new Cold War. What we need to ask now are the terms and conditions of this conflict and the possible outcomes. CrossTalking with David Swanson, Vladimir Golstein, and Chris Hedges.



[Posted at the SpookyWeather blog, July 5th, 2015.]

International Military Review - Syria, July 1, 2015




Tactical overview of the Syrian war zone.

[Posted at the SpookyWeather blog, July 5th, 2015.]

Greece and Other Musings On July 4th — Paul Craig Roberts


Also at work in Greece are the foreign-funded non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that are used to influence public opinion and even to destabilize sovereign governments. For example, the Greek NGO, Hellenic Foundation for European & Foreign Policy, is telling the Greek people that Greece can get a better deal only by accepting the EU/IMF/ECB austerity package. This, of course, is nonsense. The package is the deal. If the Greek people vote “yes” on Sunday, they will have voted against their own government and in favor of their enemies.

The austerity package looming over Greece is far from the first. It is just the latest round in the looting of a country not only of its wealth but also its sovereignty. Previous austerity packages have caused a 27% decline in Greece’s GDP, a youth unemployment rate of 60%, heavy emigration, severely reduced pensions, wages, and social services, and a rise in the suicide rate. It is not possible that the Greek newspapers and NGOs, such as the Hellenic Foundation for European & Foreign Policy, are not aware of the total failure of the austerity “solution” to the “debt crisis.” Yet, they pretend that they do not know and that more austerity is needed. Obviously, the Greek media and NGOs are in cahoots with the looters.

What is amazing is that apparently about half of the long-suffering Greek people themselves do not understand that austerity has failed and that more is not the answer. Western peoples are too propagandized for democracy to properly function. More often than not, people vote in favor of the interest groups that are looting and pillaging them.
-------------------------------------------------
Americans themselves are far along on the same path. What is happening to Greeks has been happening to Americans. The financial crisis was used to focus Federal Reserve policy on the needs of the small handful of “banks too big to fail” at the expense of the American people. It has been years since Americans received any interest on their savings. The banks don’t need to pay for money because the Federal Reserve gives it to them for free. The complete cut-off of interest income has harmed retirees and raised the specter of them running out of money before they run out of life.

Without interest income to supplement Social Security, retirees have had to draw down their savings. As savings are drawn down, future income streams diminish. They can do less to cushion a son or daughter’s loss of job due to their job being moved offshore. They can do less to help a grandchild buried under student debt and unable to find a job in the jobless economy.

All the while that a large percentage of the American population is experiencing economic frustration and hardship, the government and the financial media are telling them that recovery is underway, that the unemployment rate has come down, that construction and home sales are rebounding. These are self-evident lies, but the lies meet few protests.

Because of the holiday, jobs and employment data for June were released on Thursday. The financial media pumped the holiday weekend full of good news—223,000 new payroll jobs and a drop in the unemployment rate from 5.5% to 5.3%, a number that is closing in on full employment.
This is a totally false picture. Here is the true one:
 
The payroll jobs figure reported last month for May was revised down by 60,000 jobs. Net of the revision of the overstated May payroll jobs, the job increase was 163,000, not 223,000. This method of overestimating jobs for the good news effects and then quietly revising them later is one of the deceptions used by The Matrix.

The 163,000 payroll jobs are jobs, not employed people. Increasingly the jobs are part-time and one person may have 2 or 3 of the jobs. In June the number of people with full-time jobs declined by 349,000.

The 5.3% unemployment rate (U3) is achieved by not counting millions of unemployed people. If you have been unable to find a job and have not looked for a job in the previous four weeks, you are not included in calculation of the 5.3% rate. The financial media emphasizes this misleading rate even though the government provides a second measure of unemployment (U6) that counts the short-term discouraged workers. The inclusion of short-term discouraged workers, that is, those who cannot find a job and have given up looking, doubles the unemployment rate to 10.5%.

As part of its policy of replacing truth with propaganda, about 20 years ago the government ceased counting long-term discouraged workers among the unemployed. When the long-term unemployed are included, the rate of unemployment in the US in June was 23.1%.

A 23.1% rate of unemployment is what the government, the Federal Reserve, Wall Street, the financial media, and the Ivy League economists who shill for the One Percent call recovery.
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2015/07/03/greece-musings-july-4th-paul-craig-roberts/


Related Info:

90% of Greece's IMF Debt (242.48 Bn Euro) went directly to bail out Private Banks... Greeks are right to refuse to repay it.

[Posted at the SpookyWeather blog, July 5th, 2015.]

Keiser Report (E777): On the Verge of Despotism


In this episode of the Keiser Report, Max Keiser and Stacy Herbert discuss how it is that Aristotle predicted this day of financial and economic despotism. In the second half, Max interviews Nozomi Hayase about bitcoin and blockchain technologies enabling evolution of the human species which is presently kept enslaved by financial weapons.



[Posted at the SpookyWeather blog, July 5th, 2015.]

Libertarian Doctor Rebuts the Science Babe on GMO's, Vaccines, the FDA and Monsanto

Published on Jul 5, 2015
JM Talboo




http://welcometohealth.blogspot.com

Unbelievably bad science in the movie Seeds of Death?

http://welcometohealth.blogspot.com/2...


"In this episode of the Lions of Liberty Podcast, I am joined by Dr. Mirand Sharma, an emergency room physician of over twenty years who asked to come on the show to offer a rebuttal to the recent interview with the “Science Babe”, Yvette Guinevere. First, Dr. Sharma describes how the events of 9/11/01 along with the presidential candidacy of Ron Paul helped lead him to hold libertarian ideals. Dr. Sharma then explains why he took issue with many of the statements of the Science Babe, including her stance on GMO’s and vaccines. Dr. Sharma and I discuss how crony arrangements between the FDA and CDC and companies such as Monsanto and Merck often lead to justifiable suspicion about their products, particularly when they are able to influence the regulation of their own products. I offer my own summary in the wrap-up rant!"

http://popularliberty.com/1590/libert...

Related News:

3rd “Alternative” Prominent Doctor From Florida Found Dead in 2 weeks. Authorities say MD was murdered

[Posted at the SpookyWeather blog, July 5th, 2015.]

Saturday, 4 July 2015

Clean Break to Dirty Wars - Shattering the Middle East for Israel's Northern Front


To understand today’s crises in Iraq, Syria, and Iran, one must grasp their shared Lebanese connection. This assertion may seem odd. After all, what’s the big deal about Lebanon? That little country hasn’t had top headlines since Israel deigned to bomb and invade it in 2006. Yet, to a large extent, the roots of the bloody tangle now enmeshing the Middle East lie in Lebanon: or to be more precise, in the Lebanon policy of Israel.
 
Rewind to the era before the War on Terror. In 1995, Yitzhak Rabin, Israel’s “dovish” Prime Minister, was assassinated by a right-wing zealot. This precipitated an early election in which Rabin’s Labor Party was defeated by the ultra-hawkish Likud, lifting hardliner Benjamin Netanyahu to his first Premiership in 1996.
 
That year, an elite study group produced a foreign policy document for the incipient administration titled, “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm.” The membership of the Clean Break study group is highly significant, as it included American neoconservatives who would later hold high offices in the Bush Administration and play driving roles in its Middle East policy.
 
“A Clean Break” advised that the new Likud administration adopt a “shake it off” attitude toward the policy of the old Labor administration which, as the authors claimed, assumed national “exhaustion” and allowed national “retreat.” This was the “clean break” from the past that “A Clean Break” envisioned. Regarding Israel’s international policy, this meant:
“…a clean break from the slogan, ‘comprehensive peace’ to a traditional concept of strategy based on balance of power.”
Pursuit of comprehensive peace with all of Israel’s neighbors was to be abandoned for selective peace with some neighbors (namely Jordan and Turkey) and implacable antagonism toward others (namely Iraq, Syria, and Iran). The weight of its strategic allies would tip the balance of power in favor of Israel, which could then use that leverage to topple the regimes of its strategic adversaries by using covertly managed “proxy forces” and “the principle of preemption.” Through such a “redrawing of the map of the Middle East,” Israel would “shape the regional environment,” and thus, “Israel will not only contain its foes; it will transcend them.”
 
“A Clean Break” was to Israel (and ultimately to the US) what Otto von Bismarck’s “Blood and Iron” speech was to Germany. As he set the German Empire on a warpath that would ultimately set Europe ablaze, Bismarck proclaimed:
“Not through speeches and majority decisions will the great questions of the day be decided — that was the great mistake of 1848 and 1849 — but by iron and blood.”
Before setting Israel and the US on a warpath that would ultimately set the Middle East ablaze, the Clean Break authors were basically saying: Not through peace accords will the great questions of the day be decided — that was the great mistake of 1978 (at Camp David) and 1993 (at Oslo) — but by “divide and conquer” and regime change. By wars both aggressive (“preemptive”) and “dirty” (covert and proxy).
 
“A Clean Break” slated Saddam Hussein’s Iraq as first up for regime change. This is highly significant, especially since several members of the Clean Break study group played decisive roles in steering and deceiving the United States into invading Iraq and overthrowing Saddam seven years later.

The Clean Break study group’s leader, Richard Perle, led the call for Iraqi regime change beginning in the 90s from his perch at the Project for a New American Century and other neocon think tanks. And while serving as chairman of a high level Pentagon advisory committee, Perle helped coordinate the neoconservative takeover of foreign policy in the Bush administration and the final push for war in Iraq.

Another Clean Breaker, Douglas Feith, was a Perle protege and a key player in that neocon coup. After 9/11, as Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Feith created two secret Pentagon offices tasked with cherry-picking, distorting, and repackaging CIA and Pentagon intelligence to help make the case for the Iraq War.
 
Feith’s “Office of Special Plans” manipulated intelligence to promote the falsehood that Saddam had a secret weapons of mass destruction program that posed an imminent chemical, biological, and even nuclear threat. This lie was the main justification used by the Bush administration for the Iraq War.
 
Feith’s “Counter Terrorism Evaluation Group” trawled through the CIA’s intelligence trash to stitch together far-fetched conspiracy theories linking Saddam Hussein’s Iraq with Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda, among other bizarre pairings. Perle put the Group into contact with Ahmed Chalabi, a dodgy anti-Saddam Iraqi exile who would spin even more yarn of this sort.
 
Much of the Group’s grunt work was performed by David Wurmser, another Perle protege and the primary author of “A Clean Break.” Wurmser would go on to serve as an advisor to two key Iraq War proponents in the Bush administration: John Bolton at the State Department and Vice President Dick Cheney.
 
The foregone conclusions generated by these Clean Breaker-led projects faced angry but ineffectual resistance from the Intelligence Community, and are now widely considered scandalously discredited. But they succeeded in helping, perhaps decisively, to overcome both bureaucratic and public resistance to the march to war.

The Iraq War that followed put the Clean Break into action by grafting it onto America. The War accomplished the Clean Break objective of regime change in Iraq, thus beginning the “redrawing of the map of the Middle East.” And the attendant “Bush Doctrine” of preemptive war accomplished the Clean Break objective of “reestablishing the principle of preemption”
http://original.antiwar.com/Dan_Sanchez/2015/06/29/clean-break-to-dirty-wars/

The original neocon goal from the 90s was to put pressure on Syria via the creation of a hostile, non-Baath party, Iraq regime (which today is the ISIS proxy force) so as to undermine support for the Lebanese Hezbollah group. As another Hezbollah supporting nation, and regional power, Iran is also targeted for attack.

[Posted at the SpookyWeather blog, July 4th, 2015.]

ISIS, Israel's Covert Mercenaries




ISIS to attack Hamas and the Israeli connection to 911.

[Posted at the SpookyWeather blog, July 4th, 2015.]

Western Presstitutes Dumbfounded by Vladimir Putin’s 89% Approval Rating


Think Russians are tiring of conflict with the West? Not according to President Vladimir Putin’s approval ratings, which hit all-time highs of 89 percent Wednesday (…) Putin’s ratings jumped from 65 percent in January 2014 to 80 percent two months later, and they’ve stayed in the 80s ever since, according to measurements from the Moscow-based Levada Center, the only independent polling organization in Russia. They’ve kept going up: In Putin’s 15 years in office, they’ve never been higher than June’s 89 percent (…) The 89 percent approval rating is also a testimony to the near-unanimity of views about Russia’s current direction.

The Washington Post is correct: the Russian people do fully support Putin, especially if you consider that the 11% which are not happy with him are largely composed of Communists who blame Putin for being too sympathetic to capitalist market economy practices, nationalists who think that the Kremlin is too soft or indecisive about supporting Novorussia against the Ukronazis and maybe 1-3% (max!) who generally support the USA & EU. So in terms of the current confrontation with the AngloZionist Empire the real approval rating of Putin would be in the 97-98% range.

What does this mean?

1) There is no such thing as a “Putin” or even a “Kremlin” policy/stance on the Ukraine. There is a Russian stance on the Ukraine.

2) The sanctions have had the exact opposite effect from the one hoped for: instead of triggering a wave of discontent against Putin, the Russians have rallied around him.

3) The AngloZionist “message” has absolutely zero traction in Russia. The West has no credibility left, no appeal, no moral or political authority. Most Russians view the USA as a dangerous foe trying to subjugate Russia and they view the EU as a voiceless subservient colony of the USA.

4) The Russian will not “blink”. As I have been repeating it on this blog over and over again – Russians do not want war, but they are ready for it. The country is fully mobilized, both psychologically and materially. No amount of threats or sanctions will change this.

5) Putin’s power base is stronger than ever before. Not only are the Russian people fully supporting Putin, but the anti-Putin pro-USA “liberals” and “democrats” (in the Russian meaning of these words) are in complete disarray and on the run (mostly politically, but sometimes literally).

6) It is becoming increasingly clear that while the Russian economy has suffered from the sanctions and, even more so, from the drop in energy prices, it has fared much better than expected (including by the Kremlin) and that the planned “isolation” of Russia is an abject failure.

7) Most indicators seem to point to the same conclusion: the Ukronazi regime is at a breaking point: the purges have begun, the number of defectors is rising, the regime is making truly crazy decision (Saakashvili in Odessa), Goldman Sachs predicts an official default for the 24th of July (unofficially the Ukraine is already in a default situation).

In other words, while Russia is now stronger than at any time during this conflict, the Ukraine is weaker than at any time before. The US has no workable plan left. The Empire has failed to draw Russia into a war with the Ukraine, the Ukrainian have failed to crush the Donbass and political cracks are all over the EU. And while all the saber-rattling along the Russian border have angered the Russian people, it has completely failed to impress, much less scare, them. It appears that Putin holds Obama by the balls. So what is next?
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2015/06/30/western-presstitutes-dumbfounded-vladimir-putins-89-approval-rating/

[Posted at the SpookyWeather blog, July 4th, 2015.]