April 16, 2012
By Tony Cartalucci
“More war for America.” –KTRN
As if there was any doubt, NATO’s official “Alliance News Blog” has confirmed that the US is committed to the overthrow of Syria’s government and is “already committed to helping [President Bashar al-Assad] fall,” but is “merely looking for the least violent, lowest cost way to get there.” The April 9, 2012 blog entry features an op-ed titled, “US ‘already committed to helping Assad fall’,” and fully admits that the US is equipping the so-called “Free Syrian Army” which has received weapons, leadership, and cash from the NATO-backed Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) terrorists led by notorious mass-murderer Abdul Hakim Belhaj.
Additionally, NATO admits that the Kofi Annan brokered “peace deal” is merely a ploy stating, “if the pace of the killing slows, that could buy time: time for economic sanctions to undermine the regime, time to cajole Russia to switch sides and help pull the rug out from Assad, but also time for the opposition and its new army to organize themselves into a more effective force.”
This confirms what the Fortune 500-funded US policy think-tank Brookings Institution said regarding Kofi Annan’s plan. In Brookings’ latest report, “Assessing Options for Regime Change” it is stated (emphasis added):
An alternative is for diplomatic efforts to focus first on how to end the violence and how to gain humanitarian access, as is being done under Annan’s leadership. This may lead to the creation of safe-havens and humanitarian corridors, which would have to be backed by limited military power. This would, of course, fall short of U.S. goals for Syria and could preserve Asad in power. From that starting point, however, it is possible that a broad coalition with the appropriate international mandate could add further coercive action to its efforts. — page 4, Assessing Options for Regime Change, Brookings Institution.
April 11, 2012
By Paul Craig Roberts
Growing up in the post-war era (after the Second World War), I never expected to live in the strange Kafkaesque world that exists today. The US government can assassinate any US citizen that the executive branch thinks could possibly be a “threat” to the US government, or throw the hapless citizen into a dungeon for the rest of his or her life without presenting any evidence to a court or obtaining a conviction of any crime, or send the “threat” to a puppet foreign state to be tortured until the “threat” confesses to a crime that never occurred or dies at the hands of “freedom and democracy” while professing innocence.
It has never been revealed how a single citizen, or any number thereof, could possibly comprise a threat to a government that has a trillion plus dollars to spend each year on security and weapons, the world’s largest navy and air force, 700 plus military bases across the world, large numbers of nuclear weapons, 16 intelligence agencies plus the intelligence agencies of its NATO puppet states and the intelligence service of Israel.
Nevertheless, air travelers are subjected to porno-scanning and sexual groping. Cars traveling on Interstate highways can expect to be stopped, with traffic backed up for miles, while Homeland Security and the federalized state or local police conduct searches.
I witnessed one such warrantless search on Easter Sunday. The south bound lanes of I-185 heading into Columbus, Georgia, were at a standstill while black SUV and police car lights flashed. US citizens were treated by “security” forces that they finance as if they were “terrorists” or “domestic extremists,” another undefined class of Americans devoid of constitutional protections.
These events are Kafkaesque in themselves, but they are ever more so when one considers that these extraordinary violations of the US Constitution fail to be overturned in the Supreme Court. Apparently, American citizens lack standing to defend their civil liberties.
Yet, ObamaCare is before the US Supreme Court. The conservative majority might now utilize the “judicial activism” for which conservatives have criticized liberals. Hypocrisy should no longer surprise us. However, the fight over ObamaCare is not worth five cents.
It is extraordinary that “liberals,” “progressives,” “Democrats,” whatever they are, are defending a “health program” that uses public monies to pay private insurance companies and that raises the cost of health care.
Americans have been brainwashed that “a single-payer system is unaffordable” because it is “socialized medicine.” Despite this propaganda, accepted by many Americans, European countries manage to afford single-payer systems. Health care is not a stress, a trauma, an unaffordable expense for European populations. Among the Western Civilized Nations, only the richest, the US, has no universal health care.
March 20, 2012
“Let’s just hope this isn’t true …” –KTRN
A new report reveals that US forces continue to send detainees to prisons where torture is practiced, despite NATO’s promise to suspend prison transfers last September.
The report carried out by the Afghan Independent Rights Commission and the Open Society Foundation documents numerous cases of torture in Afghan detention facilities between February 2011 and January 2012.
The document has credible evidence in 11 recent cases where practices such as “beatings, suspension from the ceiling, electric shocks, threatened or actual sexual abuse, and other forms of mental and physical abuse” were commonplace. Researchers also discovered widespread violations of prisoners’ rights were in evidence, “including the right to counsel and family notification.”
According to the study, these techniques are “routinely used to obtain confessions or other information.”
Abuses were found to be committed both in Afghan National Police facilities (ANP) and the National Directorate of Security facilities (NDS).
Moreover, the document presents evidence that even after NATO announced it would suspend prison transfers in September, “some US forces or personnel continue to transfer individuals to NDS Kandahar.” The risk of torture for the detainees upon arrival was “widely acknowledged.” In spite of this fact, “CIA or other US intelligence officials” may be sending prisoners to banned facilities.
March 16, 2012
By Tony Cartalucci
As Libya splinters into infighting factions, with racist genocidal death squads scouring “undesirables” across the nation, entire regions of the country peeling off as semi-autonomous terror-emirates and with a BP, Shell, and Total-funded Petroleum Institute chairman installed as “Prime Minister,” one can clearly see the tens of thousands of deaths brought about by the UN-sanctioned US-lead NATO campaign against the North African nation was an absolute failure. That is, if preserving innocent life was indeed its goal.
However, if the goal was to fracture the nation into ineffectual, infighting micro-states, while installing a proxy government in Tripoli to green-light contracts with Western corporations to plunder the nation’s national wealth, it was a resounding success.
However, clearly the world was deceived by the United Nations, the International Criminal Court, the United States government, the British and French governments, and of course NATO in the execution of their “responsibility to protect” mission. To allow a repeat of the vast criminality that has irreparably ravaged Libya would be unconscionable. Yet that is exactly what Amnesty International is demanding of the Russian Federation.
March 14, 2012
By Eric Blair
“Perhaps it’s time the US stop policing the world. In case they haven’t noticed, things are pretty messed up at home.” –KTRN
In the string of military conflicts that the United States and NATO have been involved in since the second world war they have always attempted to maintain the high road by claiming that they were responding to some kind of threat, and apparently helping the people that they were bombing.
This approach is largely accepted by the general public who is either too afraid or unable to suspect malicious intentions on the part of their masters. In helping themselves to rationalize the nonsensical things that are happening in their name many people are firm believers in the idea that their government is doing good “policing the world”.
We hear this phrase all of the time, even among people who generally disagree with wars and government policy. People say that “NATO has no right to police the world as they do!”, and those people would be right. However, that statement is overlooking one fundamental premise, that being the fact that NATO’s goals and ambitions have nothing to do with “policing the world”. Just as ancient Rome’s government could care less about “bringing civilization to the savages”, today’s Western governments are not interested in “spreading democracy” or “policing the world”.
This is an extremely important point to make because this idea that they are trying to police the world perpetuates the myth of the fair and benevolent state, and downplays the significant damage that they are doing to people’s lives around the world. If we were being honest with ourselves, we would say that they are trying to take over the world’s governments and plunder their natural resources, because that’s what we can see happening around us. War is, and always has been, about conquest for plunder and power. And the many wars that we see taking place around the world today are no different.
Sure, nowadays, the cover story may be that they are “policing the world”, but there is now a mountain of evidence showing that the primary goal of these military actions are to secure natural resources, hijack the local political and financial systems, and establish more military bases to assist in future conquests.
Time after time Western imperial powers vilify foreign dictators who, in many cases, have been directly funded and supported by those same imperial powers in the past. For at least the past century the UK, US and their allies have been shipping billions of dollars worth of weapons to foreign dictators under the guise of “foreign aid”. As a side note, “foreign aid” is another one of those terms that imply a fair and benevolent state, when the reality is far more destructive than the choice of words would lead one to believe.
March 13, 2012
By Paul Joseph Watson
A shocking video appears to show Libyan rebels desecrating Christian and Jewish graves at a cemetery, further evidence that the same forces who helped NATO overthrow Gaddafi and are now carrying out attacks in Syria are extremist Muslims who care little for ‘freedom’ or ‘democracy’.
The clip shows Libyan rebels breaking apart headstones while shouting “Allahu Akbar”. The men later try to smash up a large Christian cross statue with sledgehammers.
This kind of behavior is par for the course given the fact that the western-backed regime change in Libya was achieved with the aid of Al-Qaeda terrorists who had previously fought against U.S. troops in Iraq.
Rebel forces in Libya were directed by Abdulhakim Belhadj, former leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), which is designated as a terrorist organization by the US State Department. Libyan rebel leader Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi admitted that Belhadj’s LIFG fighters were the second-largest cohort of foreign fighters in Iraq, responsible for killing U.S. troops.
Once the terrorist-led rebels executed Colonel Gaddafi, they proudly flew the distinctive black Al-Qaeda flag over courthouses in Benghazi and other centers of power. On the orders of Belhadj, the puppet National Transitional Council then announced that Sharia law would be reinstated.
Libyan rebels have since imposed a reign of terror over the country, incarcerating and torturing blacks and anyone suspected of supporting Gaddafi in concentration camps and cages.
These same terrorists were subsequently airlifted into Syria to fight NATO’s proxy war against President Bashar Al-Assad. Hillary Clinton admitted in a BBC News interview that the US and Al-Qaeda were on the same side in Syria.
March 12, 2012
By Beth Stebner
“The US military once again shows it’s true colors. This would never have even happened if they weren’t there to begin with. It’s time to bring these men and women home.” –KTRN
Nine children and three women were among 16 innocent Afghan civilians shot and killed by a U.S. soldier who opened fire after suffering a ‘mental breakdown’ early this morning.
The soldier reportedly entered the Afghan family’s homes in the middle of the night and opened fire on his victims in a killing spree. A relative of the deceased added that he then ‘poured chemicals over their dead bodies and burned them.’
The U.S service member is said to have surrendered to U.S. military authorities after entering the three homes, and is currently in their custody. Afghan president Hamid Karzai condemned the attacks as ‘an assassination’ and demanded an explanation from the U.S.
The attack could deepen strife between the two countries, as it comes weeks after NATO soldiers burned copies of the Koran – the Muslim holy book – sparking a violent protest that left some 30 people dead.
March 12, 2012
End The Lie
By Madison Ruppert
“Don’t think for a second that they are going to ask congress for a real declaration of war. They are ready to fight now.” –KTRN
According to senior Pentagon officials, American military forces are already planning for possible strikes against Iran and Syria utilizing both conventional weaponry and cyberwarfare as the situation in both nations only seems to be getting worse by the day.
Lieutenant General Herbert Carlisle, deputy chief of staff for operations, plans and requirements with the U.S. Air Force informed a March 8 investors conference sponsored by McAleese and Associates and Credit Suisse that the Department of Defense is exploring their options for military actions.
Carlisle’s statement came on the heels of an interview with the U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta for the National Journal during which he confirmed that the Pentagon is indeed planning for strikes on Iran.
This also came in the wake of Panetta saying that he thinks that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) should begin debating the issue of military intervention in Syria, although NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen claims that that discussion has not yet begun.
While Iran repeatedly denies any intent to develop nuclear weapons and Panetta himself has confirmed that they are not currently developing weapons on two separate occasions, the alleged developments in their program continues to give lawmakers and others the fuel they need to call for war.
In the case of Syria, the entire fiasco has been rife with blatant propaganda (and poor attempts at damage control), predictions of a military coup d’état, reports that the West is already discussing a no-fly zone, reports of cross-border attacks coming from Turkey, reports of Mossad, CIA and Blackwater already operating, even reports of undercover French army officers being captured and much more.
In the case of Iran, Carlisle refused to provide specifics on their planning, citing limitations due to the classified nature of the subject.
“I won’t get into any details on that, obviously, because it’s ongoing operational planning,” he said, according to Defense News.
However, he did confirm that cyberwarfare is an option that they are currently considering.
“There [are] … electronic warfare pieces. There are offensive cyber operations. There are defensive cyber operations. Without stepping over any line of classification, I would say again, everything is on the table. That could be a component,” he said.
Thankfully, it appears that these military officials are aware of the fact that invading Syria would be an entirely different beast than the Libyan operation.
“It requires thought and deliberations,” Air Force Chief of Staff General Norton Schwartz said at the same conference. “A key challenge is that Syria is not Libya. Syria is a much more demanding air defense environment as a case in point and would require a level of effort far in excess of what we did in Libya.”
The country has a somewhat outdated Soviet-era surface-to-air missile system which would likely require the American military to utilize stealth aircraft like the B-2 bomber and F-22 fighter.
March 8, 2012
By Tony Cartalucci
“John McCain might be one the worst politicians in Washington. Here is just one more example of his tyrannical corruption.” –KTRN
Even as McCain deceived the world with his comments in pursuit of overthrowing and destroying the sovereign nation-state of Libya, it was already a matter of record, according to America’s own West Point Combating Terrorism Center, that Benghazi, and much of eastern Libya known as Cyrenaica, served as an epicenter for global Al Qaeda recruitment. Militants hailing from the eastern region’s Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) would end up in both Afghanistan and Iraq fighting Western troops and participating in sectarian violence.
This included LIFG leader Abdul Hakim Belhaj aka Abdul Hakim Hasadi, who first fought alongside the CIA against the Soviets in Afghanistan, then against US and British troops before eventually being captured by the US and handed over to Qaddafi who imprisoned him for 7 years. Upon his release, he would promptly be sponsored by NATO and the likes of John McCain, given arms, money, and training just as he was by the CIA during the Soviet Afghan-invasion, with the addition of NATO close air support in his bid to overthrow the Libyan government.
Belhaj and other militant factions constituting the “Libyan rebels” would go on a genocidal rampage throughout the country, encircling cities like Bani Walid and Sirte, cutting off food, water, electricity, and emergency aid while NATO mercilessly bombed populated city centers for days, weeks, and in the case of Sirte, months.
Belhaj is now the military commander of Tripoli and has been reported to be working with Syrian militants to repeat NATO’s campaign of atrocities, destabilization, and Balkanization in Syria, where he is said to be importing weapons and funds as well as LIFG fighters.
There is no doubt that the men McCain was defending were LIFG fighters, terrorists linked directly with Al Qaeda according to West Point reports (.pdf), and listed to this day by the US State Department and the UK Home Office (.pdf) as a “foreign terrorist organization.” McCain was not only rhetorically supporting listed terrorists, but providing material support including weapons, funds, training, and airsupport in direct violation of USC § 2339A & 2339B, “providing material support or resources to designated foreign terrorist organizations.”
March 8, 2012
By Paul Joseph Watson
“Here is proof that the US congress has less power than the American people think they do.” -KTRN
The Pentagon is engaging in damage control after shocking testimony yesterday by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta at a Senate Armed Services Committee congressional hearing during which it was confirmed that the U.S. government is now completely beholden to international power structures and that the legislative branch is a worthless relic.
During the hearing yesterday Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey brazenly admitted that their authority comes not from the U.S. Constitution, but that the United States is subservient to and takes its marching orders from the United Nations and NATO, international bodies over which the American people have no democratic influence.
Panetta was asked by Senator Jeff Sessions, “We spend our time worrying about the U.N., the Arab League, NATO and too little time, in my opinion, worrying about the elected representatives of the United States. As you go forward, will you consult with the United States Congress?”
The Defense Secretary responded “You know, our goal would be to seek international permission. And we would come to the Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this, whether or not we would want to get permission from the Congress.”
Despite Sessions’ repeated efforts to get Panetta to acknowledge that the United States Congress is supreme to the likes of NATO and the UN, Panetta exalted the power of international bodies over the US legislative branch.
“I’m really baffled by the idea that somehow an international assembly provides a legal basis for the United States military to be deployed in combat,” Sessions said. “I don’t believe it’s close to being correct. They provide no legal authority. The only legal authority that’s required to deploy the United States military is of the Congress and the president and the law and the Constitution.”