Puppet MastersS


Propaganda

Reuters runs al-Qaeda propaganda, disguises them as "rebels"


Moon of Alabama
Sun, 10 Jul 2016 22:31 UTC
moderate rebel
The British news agency Reuters seems to have difficulties distinguishing between various forms of militancy.

Thus it categorizes designated terrorists as "rebels".

July 1 2016 : Syria rebels retake key town in western coastal province: monitor, rebels
Insurgents seized a strategic town from Syrian government forces and their allies in the western coastal province of Latakia on Friday, a monitoring group and the rebels said, in a rare advance for them in the area.
...
Nusra Front said in an online statement that an alliance of Islamist rebel groups including itself had captured Kansaba and a number of other villages, seizing several tanks and artillery guns.
The Nusra Front is Al Qaeda's organization in Syria. Two UN Security Council resolutions call on all UN members to "eradicate" the terrorist organization's safe havens.
Read More...
Bulb

Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard on US intervention in Syria - and the road to hell

Tulsi Gabbard
Medium
Sat, 18 Jun 2016 00:00 UTC
Tulsi Gabbard
There is much at stake as we look toward the next 5 months, and beyond. We must be engaged. Our voices must be heard on the many important issues that we are tackling — such as environmental protection, health care, education, criminal justice reform, social security, jobs, veterans, campaign finance reform, and more.

There is one issue that impacts all the rest: If we continue to spend trillions of dollars on costly interventionist regime change wars, overthrowing dictators we don't like, we will not be able to afford to make any real progress on all the other issues that are so important to all of us

As progressives, we care about the well-being of others. We are soft-hearted, and have aloha, respect, compassion for others and we don't like to see anyone suffering. As a result, sometimes it's easy to believe that maybe we should support a regime change war if we believe that war will relieve human suffering.

Proponents of the interventionist wars in Libya and Iraq argued that these actions were justified because of humanitarian concerns. It was pointed out over and over that these countries were in the grips of evil dictators who had to be removed.

Comment: One may well argue that there really are no "good intentions" involved in these cases of "intervention," but as a Congesswoman, Gabbard is choosing her words carefully and making the argument against more war in ways that most people can accept.

For an in-depth discussion of what the real intentions are among many in Washington's foreign policy establishment listen to this week's Sott Radio Show: A Very Heavy Agenda: The rise, fall and resurrection of the neocons, an interview with Robbie Martin.

Read More...
Pistol

Paul Craig Roberts - Is the Dallas police shooting a false flag affair or is there some other explanation?

Paul Craig Roberts
Paul Craig Roberts Org
Sun, 10 Jul 2016 22:24 UTC
Police Brutality
© American Free PressPolice brutality.
Is the Dallas police shooting a false flag affair in behalf of gun control? Is it the result of a war veteran suffering from post traumatic stress disorder? Is the shooting the beginning of retribution for thousands of wanton police murders of US citizens in the 21st century? Or is there some other explanation?

We will never know. The perpetrator is dead. The authorities will tell us whatever suits the purposes of authority.

We could say that the police have brought this on themselves by their undisciplined and violent behavior toward the public. On the other hand, we can hold the police chiefs, the police unions, the mayors and city councils, the governors, prosecutors, and the Justice (sic) Department responsible for failure to hold accountable those cops who murder and commit gratuitous violence against the public.

When police execute someone, the excuse is always something like this: "He reached under his shirt to his waistband. I thought he had a gun. I didn't want to leave my children fatherless and my wife a widow." The murdered victim's wife and children, if any, are of no consequence.

Conservatives, especially those taught to be fearful of crime, have scant objection to police murders. Their view is always: "The police wouldn't have shot him without cause." The same bias in favor of the police is why conservative jurors always convict.

The liberals tend to interpret the shootings as racism, so they want to combat racism.
Read More...
Attention

Soldiers were on duty outside Bataclan theater during Paris attacks, did nothing

Anoosha Boralessa (translator)
Voltaire Network
Sat, 09 Jul 2016 21:44 UTC
Georges Dallemagne
© RTL
According to the Belgian Social-Christian MP, Georges Dallemagne (the former doctor close to the French Minister of Defence), soldiers on duty in front of the Bataclan at Paris, at the time of the Isis attacks on 13 November 2015, did not intervene.

Interviewed by RTL Belgique, the politician declared:
"We know that the police did not intervene even though they were at the scene. We know that the Sentinelle Force, that had six armed soldiers in front of the Bataclan did not intervene when the carnage occurred at the Bataclan" (...)

"They considered that they were under no duty to intervene, because no such duty was laid down in their rules of engagement. Their rules provided that they could only protect themselves. It is completely incredible, mind-blowing".
The MP regretted a lack of common sense while the Belgian Minister confirmed that his men are under instruction to intervene in a similar case.

Comment: Further reading:

Read More...
Bizarro Earth

China-Philippines disputes: Incited by Washington for its own gain

Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya
Global Times
Thu, 07 Jul 2016 21:18 UTC
Duterte
© asiapacific.anu.edu.auPresident Rodrigo Duterte
The prospect for a negotiated settlement between China and the Philippines over some Nansha islands and islets appears possible with the change of government in Manila. The term of president Benigno Aquino III who rejected bilateral talks with Beijing ended on June 30. He has been replaced by Rodrigo Duterte in the Malacañan Palace. The new government has made overtures about holding bilateral talks with Beijing.

Relations became strained under the Aquino III administration. It restarted the territorial dispute and welcomed the revitalization of the US military presence in Southeast Asia.

In 2011, Aquino decided to start referring to the South China Sea as the West Philippine Sea to emphasize the country's claims, and later wrote this change into law. Straining ties further, his administration initiated legal action against China through the Permanent Court of Arbitration on October 29, 2015.

Comment: Duterte has made some controversial remarks since being sworn in:

Read More...
Attention

Putin denounces U.S.'s support for terrorists and neo-Nazis as proxies

Steven MacMillan
New Eastern Outlook
Sat, 09 Jul 2016 20:14 UTC
Obama and Putin
From Ukraine to Syria; Libya to Iraq: the West has repeatedly shown itself to be an imperial entity which brings nothing but chaos, devastation and destabilization to its victims. Contrary to spreading 'freedom and democracy' through its geopolitical endeavours, the West's rap sheet in the 21st century is unrivalled in its immorality and malevolence.

Considering this reality, it is frankly absurd that the Western mainstream media and NATO chiefs have been peddling the narrative that Russia is the belligerent power in the world today. Unless you have been living under a rock in the 21st century, you will have witnessed NATO and the Western establishment leaping from one horror show to the next. Starting with the 2001 war in Afghanistan, the West set the 21st century on the dangerous path of perpetual war, with the remaining 84 years looking as war-torn as the initial 16 if warmongering sociopaths are allowed to be at the helm of the Western world.

Comment: This policy didn't come out of nowhere. In fact, it is shaped by the same individuals who were responsible for Bush Jr.'s worst foreign policy 'decisions': the neocons behind the Project for the New American Century. The same people are active today within the rebranded Foreign Policy Initiative, and they include Bob Kagan's wife Victoria Nuland, and our favorite shellshocked lunatic, John McCain. For the whole sordid story, see Robbie Martin's documentary, A Very Heavy Agenda.

Read More...
Windsock

Turkey softening its stance on Assad staying in power for interim period


Sputnik
Sun, 10 Jul 2016 16:53 UTC
Erdogan and Assad
© turkishmonitor.comVision of the future?
Turkey is warming to the idea of Syrian President Bashar Assad remaining in power for a brief transitional period, Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper reported citing Turkish diplomatic sources. Ankara will not change its stance that after a transitional period Assad must go, sources in the Turkish Foreign Minister told the newspaper. However, Turkey may approve of him remaining in power for a transitional period of up to six months if Russia and the United States approve the decision.

According to the sources, this reassessment of the situation by Turkey may stem from the "Kurdish threat" and the damage "Syria has inflicted on Turkey's interests over the last five years."

After normalization between Ankara and Moscow began many analysts assumed that Ankara may be ready to contribute to finding a solution to the Syrian crisis. In particular, Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu confirmed that Ankara would take efforts to reach a compromise with Moscow over the Syrian crisis settlement. "Even when we had different points of view in solving the Syrian issue, we did not interrupt dialogue and made efforts to bring closer our positions," the minister said in late-June.

Turkish journalist Murat Yetkin suggests that "due to the fact that Erdogan has proposed working together with Putin on 'regional crises and terrorism,' Syria might...come into picture" following the Russo-Turkish thaw.

Comment: Erdogan must have had one heck of a life-changing message from Putin...or the meds are finally working.

Read More...
Network

EU agrees to 'renewed' data transfer deal, move Europeans' private info to US servers


RT
Sat, 09 Jul 2016 02:31 UTC
Trojan horse
© alittlebitbunny.blogspot.comWhat are the chances this 'horse' is really the data transfer deal they are expecting?
The EU has accepted a new version of the so-called Private Shield law that would allow US companies to transfer Europeans' private data to servers across the ocean. The EU struck down the previously-reached agreement over US surveillance concerns.

"Today member states have given their strong support to the EU-US Privacy Shield, the renewed safe framework for transatlantic data flows," Commission Vice-President Andrus Ansip and Justice Commissioner Vera Jourova announced in a statement saying that the agreement ensures "a high level of protection for individuals and legal certainty for business."

The majority of EU members voted in support of the Privacy Shield pact with the US that had been designed to replace its predecessor, the Safe Harbor system, which the highest EU court ruled "invalid" in October 2015 following Edward Snowden's revelations about mass US surveillance.

"It [the Privacy Shield] is fundamentally different from the old Safe Harbour: It imposes clear and strong obligations on companies handling the data and makes sure that these rules are followed and enforced in practice," Ansip and Jourova said. However, several countries, including Austria, Slovenia, Bulgaria and Croatia abstained amid privacy concerns. The newly-adopted agreement will come into force starting Tuesday.

The deal, which is said to be aimed at protecting European citizens' private data, defines the rules of how the sharing of information should be handled. It gives legal ground for tech companies such as Google, Facebook and MasterCard to move Europeans' personal data to US servers bypassing an EU ban on moving personal information out from the 28-nation bloc. The agreement covers everything from private data about employees to detailed records of what people do online.

Comment: Trust can be a flimsy thing. It is always promised, if you can trust that! The EU just bought the Trojan Horse.

Read More...
Cow Skull

Killary email probe echoes another time prosecutors weighed charging her with a crime

Rosalind S. Helderman
The Washington Post
Sat, 09 Jul 2016 17:47 UTC
Hillary Press
© Susan Biddle/The Washington PostHillary Clinton, the first lady at the time, stops to talk to reporters in January 1996 before testifying in front of a grand jury in the Whitewater investigation.
Over the course of 16 hours, prosecutors and FBI agents agonized over whether to charge Hillary Clinton with a crime. In the end, after weighing every ounce of evidence, examining piles of documents and gaming out whether a jury would ever convict her, the group made its wrenching decision: no charges.

Nearly 20 years before FBI Director James B. Comey declared that "no reasonable prosecutor" would bring a criminal case against Clinton over her use of a private email server while secretary of state, Clinton narrowly escaped a similar legal peril amid the Whitewater investigation that engulfed much of her husband's time as president.

While history remembers the 1990s probe led by independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr for its pursuit of President Bill Clinton over the possibility he had lied under oath about his relationship with intern Monica Lewinsky, internal documents from the inquiry show how close prosecutors came to filing charges at that time against Hillary Clinton. They even drew up a draft indictment for Clinton, which has never been made public.

As in the email controversy of today, Clinton's honesty was a central question facing investigators in 1998 as they weighed whether what they saw as shifting stories from Clinton amounted to an attempt to cover up misconduct. Like the events of today, Clinton was interviewed for hours by authorities. Unlike the email inquiry, in which Comey said Clinton's status as a presidential candidate had no effect on the decision not to charge her, documents from the 1990s show how prosecutors weighed whether Clinton's political popularity would make her more difficult to convict.
Read More...
Radar

NATO takes command of US-built missile shield, assuage Russian suspicions


Huff Post
Thu, 07 Jul 2016 04:22 UTC
Stoltenberg and Obama
© Jonathan Ernst/ReutersPresident Obama and Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg at NATO Summit
NATO took command of a U.S.-built missile shield in Europe on Friday after France won assurances that the multi-billion-dollar system would not be under Washington's direct control. The missile shield, billed as a defense against any strike by a "rogue state" against European cities, is one of the most sensitive aspects of U.S. military support for Europe. Russia says the system is in fact intended by Washington to blunt its nuclear arsenal, which the U.S. denies.

"Today we have decided to declare initial operational capability of the NATO ballistic missile defense system," NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg told a news conference. "This means that the U.S. ships based in Spain, the radar in Turkey and the interceptor site in Romania are now able to work together under NATO command and control," he said, adding that the umbrella was "entirely defensive" and "represents no threat to Russia's strategic nuclear deterrent". Russia is incensed at the show of force by the United States, its Cold War rival in ex-communist-ruled eastern Europe.

Washington hopes handing over control to the multinational NATO alliance can calm Russian fears. European NATO members states are seen as having nothing to gain by provoking Russia, their major energy supplier. European nations will be responsible for some funding and adding assets to the shield over time.

The system comes as NATO prepares a new deterrent in Poland and the Baltics following Russia's 2014 annexation of Crimea. In response, Russia is reinforcing its western and southern flanks with three new divisions. France, which is leading diplomatic efforts with Russia and Germany to bring peace to eastern Ukraine, needed assurances that control of the shield was genuinely being transferred to NATO, not kept under the command of U.S. generals.

Comment: Smoke and mirrors. Just because the gizmo has other nations involved in its use, doesn't mean the US doesn't have its finger on the pulse. There is direct control and there is indirect control. (BTW: Are we sure it works?)

Read More...