Puppet MastersS


Eye 2

WhatsApp says Indian journalists, activists were spied on using Israeli spyware

At least two dozen academics, lawyers, Dalit activists and journalists in India were informed by WhatsApp that they were under surveillance.
Whatsapp users
WhatsApp announced it was suing NSO Group for offering the technology that allowed spies to hack into phones.
WhatsApp has confirmed that an Israeli spyware, called Pegasus, was used by operators to spy on journalists and human rights activists in India. In a new report by The Indian Express, a WhatsApp spokesperson said that WhatsApp was aware of those targeted and had reached out to them, but the Facebook-owned company has declined to reveal the identities and "exact number" of those who were targeted.

Comment: WhatsApp sues Israel's NSO for allegedly helping spies hack phones around the world


Pirates

On the absurdity of the Neocons' Syrian oil fairy tale

Syrianoilfields
© AFP/Yousserf KarwashanSyrian Rmeilane oil fields, Hasakeh Province.
No doubt, US foreign and military policy since the 1970s has focused on access to and control over the vast oil reserves in the Middle East. Uncritical support of Saudi Arabia (home base for jihadi terrorism and the women-oppressing form of Islam practiced by the Taliban) and the Shah of Iran (oppressive dictator who led to the creation of the Islamic Republic of Iran in 1978) are/were countenanced due to the huge oil reserves these two countries possess. Gulf War I in 1990-91 involving Kuwait and Iraq was entirely about Middle East oil. Gulf War II in Iraq was initiated in 2003 for many yet unclear reasons. But sustaining this war of choice for eight years (through 2011) was done in part to get Iraq's oil production and export sales back up to the country's prewar level of 4.5 million barrels/day (b/d).

Over the last 50 years, the US has spent trillions of dollar and fought wars to ensure that the 18 million b/d of oil (about one-fifth of world supply) that is exported through the Straits of Hormuz continued to flow to the US, Europe, and Asia. (As of this year, the US became a net oil products exporter; thus our country is no longer directly dependent on foreign oil.)

But none of this US blood and treasure involved Syria oil.

Comment: John Kiriakou notes the same play book is being applied to Iraq:
[...] The most interesting part of the president's press conference [on al- Baghdadi's death] was his segue into a non sequitur about Iraq. Mid way through the press conference a reporter asked Trump about what "brilliant" people helped in his decision-making process for the operation. Trump's response was one of the most telling statements of his presidency. Indeed, it was an admission that he is perfectly willing to commit a war crime, an impeachable offense, as part of his personal ideology. Here's the exchange.

[...]

What Donald Trump is advocating here, in his very Donald Trump kind of way, is "pillaging." He is advocating taking Iraq's oil by force, ostensibly as payment for our "liberation" of that country. This is clearly and definitively a war crime.

International law has long protected property against pillage during armed conflict. The Lieber Code, a military law from the U.S. civil war, said, "All pillage or sacking, even after taking place by force, are prohibited under penalty of death, or such other severe punishment as may seem adequate for the gravity of the offense." In The Hague Regulations of 1907, two provisions stipulate clearly that "the pillage of a town or place, even when taken by assault, is prohibited," and that "pillage is formally forbidden." The Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court have both formally reaffirmed that pillaging a country of its natural resources is illegal and is considered to be a war crime. It's as simple as that.

It matters not one whit if Lindsey Graham has a bill to take Iraq's oil. It doesn't matter if Trump thinks we should take the oil as reimbursement for U.S. aggression against that country. What matters here is the rule of law, and the law is clear. It's bad enough that the U.S. military is in Syria illegally. (There are only three ways to send troops to a foreign country legally: If the troops are invited by the country; if the country attacks the United States; or with the permission of the United Nations Security Council.) Let's not add more international crimes to the ones we've already committed.
Retired General Barry McCaffrey says Trump's neocons are turning US forces into 'pirates':
[...]

On Monday Defense Secretary Mark Esper spelled out that a deployment of some few hundred US troops will deny Syrian government access to oilfields in the northeast, instead ensuring they stay in Kurdish-led SDF hands.

The immediate justification given by the Pentagon chief was the usual 'defeat ISIS' mantra (despite, ironically, their leader Baghdadi being taken out in Saturday's US raid into Idlib).

"We want to make sure that SDF does have access to the resources in order to guard the [IS] prisons, in order to arm their own troops, in order to assist us with the 'defeat ISIS' mission," Esper said.

One international legal expert, Anthony Cordesman, told The Guardian of the Pentagon plan that, "In international law, you can't take civilian goods or seize them. That would amount to a war crime."



Brick Wall

Trump's antiwar speech should have had a better reception

Trump speech
© nbcnewsUS President Donald Trump
That's right, sandwiched between Trump's standard braggadocio about how he single-handedly secured "a better future for Syria and for the Middle East," and his cynical pivot to decry his opponents' supposed desire to accept "unlimited migration from war-torn regions" across the U.S. border, was one of the strongest blasts of antiwar rhetoric delivered by a sitting U.S. president since Dwight Eisenhower.

If any other president — think Obama — or major liberal political figure had spoken so clearly against endless war and so poignantly diagnosed the current American disease of military hyper-interventionism, CNN and MSNBC would've gushed about Nobel Peace Prizes. It must be said, of course, that Trump has hardly governed according to these peacenik proclamations — he has, after all added more troops in the region, especially in Saudi Arabia, and merely reshuffled the soldiers from Syria across the border to Iraq. Nevertheless, even if the president's actions don't match his words, the words themselves remain important, especially from a 21st century, post-9/11 commander in chief.

Stop

CEO Jack Dorsey: Twitter to stop running all political advertising; Zuckerberg not clear where to draw the line

Zuckerberg/Dorsey
© Sky NewsFacebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg • Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey
Twitter will ban all political advertisements starting Nov. 22, the company announced on Wednesday — as rival platform Facebook continued to defend its controversial ad policies.

Both candidate and issue-based ads will be prohibited on Twitter globally, with a few exceptions, including for ads in support of voter registration, CEO Jack Dorsey announced.

"We've made the decision to stop all political advertising on Twitter globally," Dorsey tweeted. "We believe political message reach should be earned, not bought."

But Facebook — which has come under fire this month for allowing politicians to lie in ads and refusing to take down misleading missives — doubled down on its decision. CEO Mark Zuckerberg reportedly told investors on a quarterly earnings call:
"Although I've considered whether we should not carry [political] ads in the past, and I'll continue to do so, on balance so far I've thought we should continue."

"Ads can be an important part of voice — especially for candidates and advocacy groups the media might not otherwise cover so they can get their message into debates."

Comment: RT: 30/10/2019: Twitter bans political ads, caves in to 'election meddling' fearmongers
Dorsey admitted in a series of tweets that political advertising can skew the conversation away from organic discussion, though his declaration that "we believe this decision should not be compromised by money" belied years of taking money for exactly that skewing.


Facebook has been getting pummeled for its decision not to fact-check ads from candidates, and Dorsey may want to spare Twitter from being dragged through the same mud.

Dorsey emphasized "this isn't about free expression," and explained that trying to focus on controlling the spread of targeted messaging, disinfo, and deepfakes while also regulating advertising stopped the platform from doing either effectively. Presumably, that means Twitter will focus more on stemming the spread of "disinfo" going forward - an ominous prospect for users with political views outside of the mainstream, who have seen many of their number kicked off the major social media platforms or shadowbanned smeared as "disinfo."

Some speculated the intent was to pressure Facebook into changing its own political policies, which have been panned by several of the 2020 candidates even as they buy ads on the platform.


Others, smelling censorship but approving of the odor, called on Dorsey to ban other groups and individuals...


...or other advertisers.



Some saw the ban as a cynical political move, however, pointing out that ads are not the real driver of fake political conversations.





Vader

Theft as virtue: US regime 'justifies' the stealing Syria's oil

protest syria war
© Fibonacci BlueProtest against U.S. military actions in Syria, Minneapolis, April 2017
On October 26th, the New York Times headlined "Keep the Oil': Trump Revives Charged Slogan for New Syria Troop Mission" and opened by saying that "in recent days, Mr. Trump has settled on Syria's oil reserves as a new rationale for appearing to reverse course and deploy hundreds of additional troops to the war-ravaged country." They closed with a statement from Bruce Riedel, retired from the CIA: "'Let's say he does do it,' Mr. Riedel said. 'Let's say we establish the precedent that we are in the Middle East to take the oil. The symbolism is really bad.'" The propaganda-value of a 'news'-report is concentrated in its opening, and especially in what the 'reporter' (fulfilling the intentions of his editors) selected to be at the very end (such as Riedel's statement). However, is what's wrong with taking Syria's oil actually the "symbolism," as Riedel said, or is it instead the theft — the reality (and why did the NYT pretend that it's the latter)? Nowhere did that NYT article use the word "theft," or anything like it, but that is the actual issue here — not mere 'symbolism'.

Trump had been so lambasted by the Democratic Party's 'news'-media (such as the NYT) and by all the rest of the neoconservative 'news'-media (the Republican ones), for his trying to withdraw forces from Obama's regime-change war against Syria, he's now switched to trying to 'justify' continuation of America's invasion-occupation of Syria by his promising to steal the oil there — but the 'news'-media almost never use that term ("theft"), or anything like it, to describe what he is promising to do, because they themselves have been propagandizing the American people to oppose withdrawal from Syria, which would mean ending Obama's invasion-occupation of Syria. Both the Republican and the Democratic Parties, and their 'news'-media, have been full-bore "Assad must step-down."

Stop

Amidst bloody riots, Iraqi PM declares he will resign if acceptable replacement found

Barham Salih
© ReutersIraqi President Barham Salih
Iraqi President Barham Salih promised the resignation of his prime minister Adel Abdul Mahdi on the condition his departure does not leave a "constitutional vacuum" and a replacement is found.

In an televised address to the nation, Mr Salih said Mr Abdul Mahdi had agreed to submit his resignation. "The prime minister had previously agreed to submit his resignation, if the blocs agree on an acceptable replacement in order to adhere to constitutional and legal frameworks," Mr Salih said.

Mr Salih said he would welcome an early election, but only after the institution of reforms to the current electoral system and a national dialogue to improve how the country is governed [occurs].

His speech responded to a month of protest in Iraq's south, in which up to 250 people have been killed. Protesters say security forces are being heavy-handed and violent, but refuse to back down.

Comment: Sputnik, 31/10/2019: Death toll rises in Iraqi protests
The demonstrators call on the government to resign and demand economic reforms and fighting against corruption. As the protests resumed last Friday, Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi said that he would carry out a cabinet reshuffle and introduce changes to election laws. Mahdi said that the government's resignation, demanded by protesters, would throw the country in chaos.
See also:


Star of David

Sanders: $3.8B annual US military aid to Israel should be leveraged to end horrific treatment of Palestinians

BernSanders
© Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty ImagesPresidential candidate Bernie Sanders
"We have a right to say to the Israeli government that the United States of America and our taxpayers and our people believe in human rights, we believe in democracy, we will not accept authoritarianism or racism."
Speaking at a conference Monday hosted by the liberal-leaning Jewish organization J Street, Sen. Bernie Sanders expressed support for leveraging billions of dollars in annual U.S. military aid to stop Israel's horrific treatment and occupation of the Palestinian people.

Sanders, who is vying to become the first Jewish president in U.S. history, said:
"My solution is to say to Israel: You get $3.8 billion every single year. If you want military aid you're going to have to fundamentally change your relationship to the people of Gaza. I think it is fair to say that some of that $3.8 billion should go right now into humanitarian aid in Gaza."

Comment: Watch Sanders' full appearance at the J Street conference:




X

Adam Schiff told witnesses they don't have to respond to GOP questions

Schiff
© Boston HeraldHouse Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff
House Minority Whip Steve Scalise accused House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff Tuesday of undermining Republicans during the impeachment hearing against President Donald Trump when he told witnesses they didn't have to answer questions posed by Republicans.

"Adam Schiff, is claiming that this is a fair process by saying that Republicans are allowed to ask questions. He gets to choose all the witnesses - him and himself only - which means its not a fair process on its face," Scalise said.

"Even (Schiff's) claim now that Republicans can ask questions has been undermined because now he's directing witnesses not to answer questions that he doesn't want the witnesses to answer if they're asked by Republicans," said Scalise, who spoke to reporters after the hearing with Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio.


Attention

Rights group says CIA-trained death squads behind Afghan war crimes

afghan airstrike
© AFPAccording to NATO data, the United States conducted 1,113 air and artillery strikes in September, a large increase on previous months.
Human Rights Watch (HRW) says CIA-backed Afghan paramilitary forces have "committed summary executions and other grave abuses without accountability" -- including extrajudicial killings, forced disappearances, and attacks on health-care facilities.

In its report, released on October 31, HRW called on the Afghan government to immediately disband all pro-government paramilitary groups that operate outside the "ordinary military chain of command."

It is also calling for the Afghan government to "impartially investigate all allegations of abuse by Afghan security forces" and to "prosecute those responsible for war crimes and serious abuses."

It says both the United States and the Afghan government should also "cooperate with independent investigations of all allegations of war crimes and other human rights abuses."


Comment: Never going to happen.


It also says the U.S. government should "investigate any U.S. personnel" involved in abuses, and should "cease supporting Afghan forces that have been responsible for serious violations."


Comment: In an ideal world, but again, never going to happen.


HRW documented 14 cases from late 2017 to mid-2019 in which it said CIA-backed "strike groups" committed grave abuses during night raids, such as one in the southeastern province of Paktia in which a paramilitary squad killed 11 men, including eight who were home for the Eid holidays.

Comment: The CIA in Afghanistan simply pulled out the Phoenix program playbook. Douglas Valentine has the details:


Mr. Potato

Corrupt spook Brennan assures us that Russia 'changed minds' during 2016 election - at least one!

Brennan
© The Counter Jihad Report"Russian meddling changed this many votes."
Former CIA Director John Brennan took findings from his country's intelligence agencies a step further by saying that at least one voter was persuaded as a result of Russia's 2016 presidential election interference machinations, but refrained from concluding that the operation influenced the vote's outcome.

Speaking to the National Press Club in Washington on October 30, Brennan said he was "sure, personally, that those Russian efforts changed the mind of at least one voter."

"Whether it was one voter or a million voters, I don't know," he said at the event alongside former intelligence figures.

Comment: At least one American voter changed their vote because they ate a bad burrito that morning. We can't say for sure who it was, but we're highly confident it did happen. And at least two voters changed their vote from Democrat to Republican after visualizing for three seconds what a Hillary presidency would look like. In fact, we're extremely confident that either or both of those factors swung a heckuva lot more votes than the "Russian meddling" Brennan can't stop obsessing about.