Puppet MastersS

Whistle

Who owns information? Snowden and the CDC whistleblower

Jon Rappoport
Activist Post
Tue, 23 Sep 2014 20:45 UTC
Image
Let me start with this general statement: there are scientists and politicians who are trained like dogs to believe that corrections to the deepest crimes of government can be achieved through an orderly structure and process.

This belief is a form of mind control. It's engraved in a place where so-called rational people still entertain a fairy tale about rescue and "everything working out properly, through channels."

Among the many differences between Ed Snowden and William Thompson, the CDC whistleblower, there is one striking similarity.

They've both taken government documents. In Snowden's case, NSA material. In Thompson's case, CDC vaccine-data.
Read More...
Propaganda

The BBC misleads public with deceptive Welsh poll for independence


The Daily Wales
Wed, 24 Sep 2014 17:17 UTC
Image
© UnknownAdvisor to BBC poll, Professor Roger Scully, expresses surprise over misconstrued results
BBC Wales has misled the public with claims that support for Welsh independence has reached record low-levels.

The best spin you could put on the way they have covered the findings of the ICM/BBC Wales poll is terrible journalism.

Otherwise, you would have to conclude that BBC Wales, an organisation which promotes British nationalism, has deliberately presented a factually incorrect statement designed to mislead.

The claim made by BBC Wales in its coverage of an ICM survey was:
"Support for Welsh independence has fallen to its lowest recorded level in the wake of the Scottish referendum, according to a poll for BBC Wales.

"The survey, carried out days after Scotland voted "No", found 3% wanted Wales to be independent."
Read More...
2 + 2 = 4

Lavrov is right again: West is just fighting the same extremists they sponsored


RT
Wed, 24 Sep 2014 16:05 UTC
Lavrov
© Photoshot / Vostock PhotoSergei Lavrov, Russian Foreign Minister.
The Western powers that fostered Islamic extremists to incite them against Middle Eastern regimes should stop dividing terrorists into good and bad ones, Russia's foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, said in a TV interview.

In an interview to Channel 5 in St. Petersburg, Lavrov said: "Now that the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant has been appointed United States' archenemy, I'd like to recall that [ISIS militants] are the very same people that evolved and got powerful sponsorship and material support from abroad at the time of the regime change efforts in Libya and later on when the same process was attempted in Syria."

The Russian foreign minister recalled the no-holds-barred time when Americans and Europeans were justifying their help to Islamic fundamentalists as providing support to those opposing unpopular regimes.

"When we called their attention to the fact that there were a large number of terrorists and extremists fighting the regimes, [the Americans and Europeans] essentially told us that all such things would pass once they overthrew the regimes, and that they would deal with this later on," Lavrov said. "But all this turned out to be wrong."

In another example, Lavrov said that France had armed the militants fighting against Libyan strongman Muammar Gaddafi, yet some time later faced the same people in Mali, where French troops had to oppose Islamic fundamentalists who migrated there from a ravaged Libya after Gaddafi's fall.

"We need a general criterion: if we do fight terrorism - we do it everywhere and always. You cannot divide terrorists into good and bad ones, only because some of them help you to oust a legitimately elected leader of a UN member country that you don't like," Lavrov said.

Comment: The U.S. rejected the idea of collaborating with the government of Syria because their goal is regime change in Syria, and they're using the war against ISIS to achieve that goal: US starts bombing Syria - Real target is Assad

Read More...
Stormtrooper

Police state accelerates as New York calls up National Guard troops to boost security

Glenn Blain, Annie Karni
Daily News
Fri, 19 Sep 2014 04:24 UTC
Cuomo, Natl guard
© www.army.milGovernor Cuomo and the New York Army National Guard
Although saying there is "no specific threat" of a terror attack, Gov. Cuomo announced on Friday that he is calling up hundreds of National Guard troops and other personnel to beef up security in New York.

Summoning reporters and legislative leaders to his midtown office, Cuomo said a comprehensive new security plan will be implemented to cover airports, transit hubs and large gathering points across the region.

He declined to give specifics of the plan until he formally unveils it with New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie next week.

Cuomo, who is running for re-election, said "it is undeniable that New York is a possible target of terrorist activity," either "in retaliation... or as an offensive gesture."

Subway Natl Guard
© www.newsday.comCommuters will see increased police and National Guard presence at transit hubs.
However, he acknowledged that, "We have no specific threat" of terrorists plotting an attack.

"This is just a general precaution given the obvious situation and obvious facts," Cuomo told reporters, after discussing the situation with legislative leaders.

It was Cuomo's second media briefing on security issues in five days, activity that comes as he is ramping up his general election campaign against Republican Rob Astorino. The ability to command media attention through official duties is an advantage that incumbents almost always have over challengers.

Comment: Is the Gov. crying 'wolf' and putting it on NY's credit card? Is this a test of the public acceptance of authoritarian boots-on-the-ground surveillance? Or a ploy to get votes in the upcoming election? All three...? Don't question, obey even if it is unconstitutional, tightly control the masses, forget that they are tracking who you are, where you go, what you buy, programming what you think and fear...because they are "protecting you" (from speculation). Bigger agenda, anyone? Homemade ISIS terrorists over there...U.S. cities into lockdown over here. Sounds like Israeli mentality and manipulation.

Read More...
Black Magic

Syrian regime change remix: Operation Tomahawk the Caliph

Pepe Escobar
Asia Times Online
Wed, 24 Sep 2014 14:59 UTC
US gun diplomacy on Syria
© Adam Zyglis
The Tomahawks are finally flying again - propelled by newspeak. 42 Tomahawks fired from a Sixth Fleet destroyer parked in Mare Nostrum, plus F-22s raising hell and Hellfires spouted by drones, that's a neat mini-Shock and Awe to honor Caliph Ibrahim, aka Abu Bakr al -Baghdadi, self-declared leader of Islamic State.

It's all so surgical. All targets - from "suspected" weapons depots to the mayor's mansion in Raqqah (the HQ of The Caliph's goons) and assorted checkpoints - were duly obliterated, along with "dozens of", perhaps 120, jihadis.

And praise those "over 40" (Samantha Power) or "over 50" (John Kerry) international allies in the coalition of the unwilling; America is never alone, although in this case mightily escorted, de facto, only by the usual Gulf petrodollar dictatorships and the realm of King Playstation, Jordan, all none too keen to engage in "kinetic activities".

Aseptic newspeak aside, no one has seen or heard a mighty Gulf Cooperation Council air force deployed to bomb Syria. After all the vassals are scared as hell to tell their own populations they are - once again - bombing a fellow Arab nation. As for Damascus, it meekly said it was "notified" by the Pentagon its own territory would be bombed. Nobody really knows what the Pentagon is exactly telling Damascus.

The Pentagon calls it just the beginning of a "sustained campaign" - code for Long War, which is one of the original denominations of the Global War on Terror (GWOT) anyway. And yes, for all practical purposes this is a coalition of one. Let's call it Operation Tomahawk The Caliph.

Comment: See also: US airstrikes on Syria are desperation incarnate

Read More...
Rocket

US airstrikes on Syria are desperation incarnate

Tony Cartalucci
New Eastern Outlook
Wed, 24 Sep 2014 13:58 UTC
Image
© Unknown
The West was racing against the clock - attempting to justify war with Syria by allegedly "fighting" the so-called "Islamic State" (ISIS) in Syrian territory before the world fully realized the West and its allies had in fact created ISIS in the first place and was to this day arming, funding, and directing them. In haste that can only be described as desperation bordering criminal insanity, the West announced that it has begun air and missile attacks on Syrian territory.

It alleges that it is attacking ISIS, however - and unlike its campaign in neighboring Iraq - the US in particular refuses to provide any details as to what it is actually doing in Syria.

Reuters would report in its article, "U.S., Arab partners launch first strikes on IS in Syria," that:
The United States and several Gulf Arab allies launched air and missile strikes on Islamic State strongholds in Syria on Tuesday, U.S. officials said, opening a new, far more complicated front in the battle against the militants.
"I can confirm that U.S. military and partner nation forces are undertaking military action against (Islamic State) terrorists in Syria using a mix of fighter, bomber and Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles," Rear Admiral John Kirby, Pentagon press secretary, said in a statement.
It is these very "Arab partners" that are also on record, arming and funding terrorism along Syria's borders as well as backing terrorist organizations operating in Syria itself. Saudi Arabia and Qatar, in particular, have been providing money and cash, while the US CIA distributed it mainly along Turkey's border with Syria in the north, and Jordan's border with Syria to the south.


Comment: See: "Fighting" ISIL: Washington and company are part of the problem, not the solution


Despite years of rhetoric attempting to differentiate what the West calls "moderates" from known terrorist organizations including US State Department-listed foreign terrorist organizations Al Nusra, and the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), it is clear that literally days before ISIS crossed into Iraq triggering the latest geopolitical crisis in the region, ISIS was fighting alongside so-called moderates in an attack on Syria's town of Kassab along the border with Turkey. Turkey, a NATO member, would even go as far as providing aircover for the attack which was in fact launched from Turkish territory.
Read More...
Bad Guys

Karzai's farewell speech: US didn't want peace in Afghanistan


RT
Tue, 23 Sep 2014 00:10 UTC
Image
© Reuters/Omar Sobhani
Outgoing Afghan President Hamid Karzai punctuated on Tuesday his tumultuous 13-year relationship with the United States, alleging that America invaded Afghanistan in 2001 for "its own interests" and never really wanted peace in the region.

Karzai, the only Afghan president since the 2001 US-led invasion, said the United States only wanted war in Afghanistan "because of its own interests," and that Pakistan colludes with Washington to back perpetual violence in his country.

"If America and Pakistan really want it, peace will come to Afghanistan," Karzai said, according to AP."War in Afghanistan is based on the aims of foreigners. The war in Afghanistan is to the benefit of foreigners. But Afghans on both sides are the sacrificial lambs and victims of this war."

Karzai criticized neighboring Pakistan for the lasting Taliban-led insurgency while warning the incoming government to "be extra cautious in relations with the [United States] and the West," Reuters reported.

Comment: Parliamentary member Samem should've realized by now that any support coming from the international community, especially from the US, has resulted in nothing other than an increasing number of dead civilians caused by NATO and their Taliban allies. Former president Karzai hit the nail on the head: The purpose of the invasion was never to establish peace. It is therefore mind-boggling that despite this fact, president-'elect' Ghani has said to sign the 'security' agreement that would enable 10k American military 'advisers' to stay in Afghanistan next year. It is obvious that this National Unity Government is more interested in serving the Western warmongers, than serving the Afghan people and truly establishing stability in the country. With people like Ghani and Abdullah running the country, there is little hope left for Afghanistan.

See also:

Read More...
Passport

โ€‹Pepe Escobar: From Afghanistan to 'Syraq'

Pepe Escobar
RT
Tue, 23 Sep 2014 11:10 UTC
Image
© Reuters/StringerAn Islamic State militant (L) stands next to residents as they hold pieces of wreckage from a Syrian war plane after it crashed in Raqqa, in northeast Syria September 16, 2014.
US Secretary of State Kerry brokered a deal in Afghanistan, installing a 'coalition' government, but couldn't come up with a credible coalition to bomb IS in Syria. So the Pentagon will do it alone to the applause of its Gulf 'petrodollar allies.'

This is a short tale of two coalitions.

Let's start with Afghanistan. The charade in Kabul goes by the name of "power-sharing agreement."

You got an election problem? Call John Kerry. That's right; this "agreement" was brokered by none other than the US Secretary of State, who shoved the embarrassing issue of a tainted democratic election under an Afghan carpet.

It came to the point that a UN representative, Jan Kubish, virtually ordered the Afghan electoral commission not to release vote numbers.

And this is while the UN itself had been monitoring an audit and a recount of approximately 8 million votes.

The predictable "senior US officials" spun that the vote result was "transparent." But still, no numbers.

So now we have - essentially appointed by Washington - former Finance Minister and World Bank official Ashraf Ghani as President, and Dr. Abdullah Abdullah as "Chief Executive", a new post.

And this after Abdullah insistently claimed the vote results were no less than a monster fraud. US "Think Tank-land," unfazed, has called it a "temporary fix."
Read More...
Bomb

Obama invents a dangerous new legal theory to justify bombing of Syria

Robert Parry
consortiumnews.com
Tue, 23 Sep 2014 09:55 UTC
The U.S. government likes international law when it serves Washington's purposes, but not when it constrains U.S. desires to use military force. Then, the rules are bent, ignored or subjected to novel lawyering, as President Obama is doing with airstrikes into Syria.
Image
© Reuters / Abdalghne KaroofResidents inspect damaged buildings in what activists say was a U.S. strike, in Kfredrian, Idlib province September 23, 2014
The Obama administration has devised an extraordinary legal justification for carrying out bombing attacks inside Syria: that the United States and its Persian Gulf allies have the right to defend Iraq against the Islamic State because the Syrian government is unable to stop the cross-border terror group.

"The Syrian regime has shown that it cannot and will not confront these safe havens effectively itself," said the U.S. letter delivered by Ambassador Samantha Power to United Nations officials. "Accordingly, the United States has initiated necessary and proportionate military actions in Syria in order to eliminate the ongoing ISIL [Islamic State] threat to Iraq, including by protecting Iraqi citizens from further attacks and by enabling Iraqi forces to regain control of Iraq's borders."


Comment: Contrary to the usual twisting of reality by Ambassador Power, the Syrian government has been confronting ISIL.

How about arming Syria? The Syrian Arab Army is already fighting ISIS


Yet, beyond the danger to world order if such an expansive theory is embraced by the international community (does anyone remember how World War One got started?), there is the hypocrisy of the U.S. government and many of those same Gulf allies arming, training and funding Syrian rebels for the purpose of preventing the Syrian military from controlling its territory and then citing that lack of control as the rationale to ignore Syria's sovereignty.

In other words, the United States, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan and other enemies of Syria covertly backed the rebels inside Syria and watched as many of them - including thousands of the U.S.-preferred "moderates" - took their newly acquired military skills to al-Qaeda affiliates and other terrorist organizations. Then, the U.S. and its allies have the audacity to point to the existence of those terror groups inside Syria as a rationale for flying bombing raids into Syria.

Another alarming part of the U.S. legal theory is that among this new "coalition of the willing" - the U.S., Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain and Jordan - only Jordan shares a border with Syria. So, this novel principle would mean that distant countries have the right to destabilize a country from afar and then claim the destabilization justifies mounting military attacks inside that country.
Read More...
Red Flag

Time to shed the colonial past: New Zealand PM wants to cut Britain's Union Jack out of national flag


RT
Wed, 24 Sep 2014 09:45 UTC
Image
© Reuters / Heino Kalis
New Zealand Prime Minister John Key, who just won a third term in office, wants to drop the Union Jack from his country's flag. He plans to hold a referendum in 2015, which could lead to the creation of a new flag for the nation.

Just days after sealing a third three-year term as the Prime Minister of New Zealand, John Key is already looking to move away from the country's colonial past. The head of state wants to hold a referendum in 2015 to see if the public wants to abolish the 122 year-old symbol, which has the Union Jack in the left corner and four stars which symbolize the Southern Cross constellation

"I want to get on with it. To me, I'd like to do it in 2015," said Key, referring to the project of remaking the country's flag. "I'd like to complete the whole process next year. I don't think it's one of those things we should hang around with forever," the Washington Post quoted him saying.
Read More...