Was wir schon wussten, jetzt offiziell bestätigt: USA, Saudi-Arabien, Qatar und Türkei wollten Assad stürzen und haben direkt Rebellen inkl. Al Qaida unterstützt!

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-10-28/shocking-viral-interview-qatar-confesses-secrets-behind-syrian-war

In Shocking, Viral Interview, Qatar Confesses Secrets Behind Syrian War

A television interview of a top Qatari official confessing the truth behind the origins of the war in Syria is going viral across Arabic social media during the same week a leaked top secret NSA document was published which confirms that the armed opposition in Syria was under the direct command of foreign governments from the early years of the conflict.

And according to a well-known Syria analyst and economic adviser with close contacts in the Syrian government, the explosive interview constitutes a high level „public admission to collusion and coordination between four countries to destabilize an independent state, [including] possible support for Nusra/al-Qaeda.“ Importantly, „this admission will help build case for what Damascus sees as an attack on its security & sovereignty. It will form basis for compensation claims.“

A 2013 London press conference: Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jabr Al Thani with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry. A 2014 Hillary Clinton email confirmed Qatar as a state-sponsor of ISIS during that same time period. 

As the war in Syria continues slowly winding down, it seems new source material comes out on an almost a weekly basis in the form of testimonials of top officials involved in destabilizing Syria, and even occasional leaked emails and documents which further detail covert regime change operations against the Assad government. Though much of this content serves to confirm what has already long been known by those who have never accepted the simplistic propaganda which has dominated mainstream media, details continue to fall in place, providing future historians with a clearer picture of the true nature of the war.

This process of clarity has been aided – as predicted – by the continued infighting among Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) former allies Saudi Arabia and Qatar, with each side accusing the other of funding Islamic State and al-Qaeda terrorists (ironically, both true). Increasingly, the world watches as more dirty laundry is aired and the GCC implodes after years of nearly all the gulf monarchies funding jihadist movements in places like Syria, Iraq, and Libya.

The top Qatari official is no less than former Prime Minister Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber al-Thani, who oversaw Syria operations on behalf of Qatar until 2013 (also as foreign minister), and is seen below with then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in this Jan. 2010 photo (as a reminder, Qatar’s 2022 World Cup Committee donated $500,000 to the Clinton Foundation in 2014).

In an interview with Qatari TV Wednesday, bin Jaber al-Thani revealed that his country, alongside Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the United States, began shipping weapons to jihadists from the very moment events „first started“ (in 2011).

Al-Thani even likened the covert operation to „hunting prey“ – the prey being President Assad and his supporters – „prey“ which he admits got away (as Assad is still in power; he used a Gulf Arabic dialect word, „al-sayda“, which implies hunting animals or prey for sport). Though Thani denied credible allegations of support for ISIS, the former prime minister’s words implied direct Gulf and US support for al-Qaeda in Syria (al-Nusra Front) from the earliest years of the war, and even said Qatar has „full documents“ and records proving that the war was planned to effect regime change.

According to Zero Hedge’s translation, al-Thani said while acknowledging Gulf nations were arming jihadists in Syria with the approval and support of US and Turkey: „I don’t want to go into details but we have full documents about us taking charge [in Syria].“ He claimed that both Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah (who reigned until his death in 2015) and the United States placed Qatar in a lead role concerning covert operations to execute the proxy war.

The former prime minister’s comments, while very revealing, were intended as a defense and excuse of Qatar’s support for terrorism, and as a critique of the US and Saudi Arabia for essentially leaving Qatar „holding the bag“ in terms of the war against Assad. Al-Thani explained that Qatar continued its financing of armed insurgents in Syria while other countries eventually wound down large-scale support, which is why he lashed out at the US and the Saudis, who initially „were with us in the same trench.“

In a previous US television interview which was vastly underreported, al-Thani told Charlie Rose when asked about allegations of Qatar’s support for terrorism that, „in Syria, everybody did mistakes, including your country.“ And said that when the war began in Syria, „all of use worked through two operation rooms: one in Jordan and one in Turkey.“

Below is the key section of Wednesday’s interview, translated and subtitled by @Walid970721. Zero Hedge has reviewed and confirmed the translation, however, as the original rush translator has acknowledged, al-Thani doesn’t say „lady“ but „prey“ [„al-sayda“]- as in both Assad and Syrians were being hunted by the outside countries.

The partial English transcript is as follows:

„When the events first started in Syria I went to Saudi Arabia and met with King Abdullah. I did that on the instructions of his highness the prince, my father. He [Abdullah] said we are behind you. You go ahead with this plan and we will coordinate but you should be in charge. I won’t get into details but we have full documents and anything that was sent [to Syria] would go to Turkey and was in coordination with the US forces and everything was distributed via the Turks and the US forces. And us and everyone else was involved, the military people. There may have been mistakes and support was given to the wrong faction… Maybe there was a relationship with Nusra, its possible but I myself don’t know about this… we were fighting over the prey [„al-sayda“] and now the prey is gone and we are still fighting… and now Bashar is still there. You [US and Saudi Arabia] were with us in the same trench… I have no objection to one changing if he finds that he was wrong, but at least inform your partner… for example leave Bashar [al-Assad] or do this or that, but the situation that has been created now will never allow any progress in the GCC [Gulf Cooperation Council], or any progress on anything if we continue to openly fight.“

As is now well-known, the CIA was directly involved in leading regime change efforts in Syria with allied gulf partners, as leaked and declassified US intelligence memos confirm. The US government understood in real time that Gulf and West-supplied advanced weaponry was going to al-Qaeda and ISIS, despite official claims of arming so-called „moderate“ rebels. For example, a leaked 2014 intelligence memo sent to Hillary Clinton acknowledged Qatari and Saudi support for ISIS.

The email stated in direct and unambiguous language that:

the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region.“

Furthermore, one day before Prime Minister Thani’s interview, The Intercept released a new top-secret NSA document unearthed from leaked intelligence files provided by Edward Snowden which show in stunning clarity that the armed opposition in Syria was under the direct command of foreign governments from the early years of the war which has now claimed half a million lives.

The newly released NSA document confirms that a 2013 insurgent attack with advanced surface-to-surface rockets upon civilian areas of Damascus, including Damascus International Airport, was directly supplied and commanded by Saudi Arabia with full prior awareness of US intelligence. As the former Qatari prime minister now also confirms, both the Saudis and US government staffed „operations rooms“ overseeing such heinous attacks during the time period of the 2013 Damascus airport attack.

No doubt there remains a massive trove of damning documentary evidence which will continue to trickle out in the coming months and years. At the very least, the continuing Qatari-Saudi diplomatic war will bear more fruit as each side builds a case against the other with charges of supporting terrorism. And as we can see from this latest Qatari TV interview, the United States itself will not be spared in this new open season of airing dirty laundry as old allies turn on each other.

Advertisements

Dear Brits, remember the Dreadnoughts?

Überflüssigstes Anschaffung neben dem F-35. Die britische Militärindustrie kann sich bereichern ohne Scham. Ausserdem hat die Armee so weniger Geld für andere Rüstungs- und Waffenbereiche, die in zukünftigen Konflikten weit effektiver wären und eine echte Bedrohung darstellen würden.

Vielleicht sind die britischen Militärs damit die grössten Friedensapostel, leider auf Kosten der britischen Bevölkerung.

Der einzige Lichtblick: Die Schiffe sind strategisch völlig überflüssig und daher für die anderen Grossmächte wie Russland und China keine Bedrohung. Allerdings könnten sie in Konflikten an der afrikanischen Küste eingesetzt werden, um afrikanische Länder zu disziplinieren, und möglicherweise ist das auch das Ziel der Briten. Den Nahen Osten scheint mir, haben die Briten inzwischen endgültig verloren, so dass Flugzeugträger dort keinen Sinn machen.

Sobald aber China und Russland mit afrikanischen Ländern strategische Defensivverträge und Waffenlieferunge vereinbaren, ist diese Machtprojektion der Briten ebenfalls nutzlos. Vgl. Syrien 2017. Kein Flugzeugträger hilft hier, wenn die Luftverteidigung genügend gut ausgestattet ist.

 

 

Authored by Matthew Jamison via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

Over the course of the summer there was great fanfare and much to do from the British Secretary of State, Sir Michael Fallon MP, regarding the ‚completion‘ of two new British aircraft carriers called HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales.

Fallon, a thoroughly odious English Tory and old Cold War warrior, got punch drunk and completely giddy with the unveiling of the new aircraft carriers. Fallon got so excited he started spouting the most ridiculous anti-Russian nonsense such as this contrasting the Royal Navy’s new 65,000-ton carrier with what he called the “dilapidated” Russian carrier Admiral Kuznetsov. Fallon went on in wild Cold War terminology to invoke the spectre of what he erroneously and egregiously called ‚Russian aggression‘ and absurdly claimed that the mighty Russian Federation was some how ‚jealous‘ of Britain’s two new aircraft carriers. Quite frankly, there is not much to be jealous about when one scratches beneath the Tory English anti- Russian surface.

As is so often the case with the English, in particular their most offensive incarnation in the form of the Tory Party, what the English say and what the reality of the situation is, the hard cold truth, are two very different matters that rarely, if ever, gel together. Fallon quoted the former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher [who actually had tremendous respect and admiration for and a very good working relationship with the last General Secretary of the Soviet Union Mikhail Gorbachev] in trying to whip up stupid and offensive anti-Russian Cold War sentiment. Well, I am reminded of another one of Mrs Thatcher’s great quotations which I am fond of throwing back in ugly English Tory faces: ‚Such is presentation……how different from reality.‘

Fallon would not countenance any criticism of the new aircraft carriers, their cost, their Ministry of Defence project management, their sea readiness, their utility, and a whole host of other salient issues which deserved scrutiny by snapping that critics should ’shut up.‘ I’m sorry Fallon but the last time I checked the UK was supposedly a free liberal democracy with intellectual freedom and freedom of speech. Not some Gestapo State as your colleague Mrs May has attempted to create.

http://player.ooyala.com/static/v4/stable/4.14.8/skin-plugin/iframe.html?ec=VwYTNxYjE6w4uNaRXaTjwpXFKs2aX00l&pbid=ZTIxYmJjZDM2NWYzZDViZGRiOWJjYzc5&pcode=RvbGU6Z74XE_a3bj4QwRGByhq9h2

So let us examine closely how brilliant and what a great investment these two new British aircraft carriers are. Both HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales have roughly cost the hard pressed, almost bankrupt UK taxpayer a combined 6 Billion Pounds. At the official launch of HMS Queen Elizabeth back in the summer Fallon boasted: 

‚But Queen Elizabeth, the biggest and the greatest warship this country has ever built, will go on now from these trials to defend our country, to safeguard our sea lanes, to work with our allies and partners to keep the peace, and to save lives across all seven seas.‘

When pressed on what he would say to the ‚armchair critics‘, Fallon beat his meagre chest and said

‚They should come and see this wonderful flagship of the Royal Navy, which will help keep this country safe for 50 years to come.‘

Not to leave any hostages to fortune and most certainly not to be modest Fallon went on:

‚This is a great day for Britain. There are only three other countries in the world building aircraft carriers – and we are building two.‘

Let us blow away the Fallon/Tory/English spin and Rule Britannia hyperbole and examine the truth.

While on a tour of the Royal Navy’s mighty new aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth, an intrepid journalist noticed that it is fitted with the exact same software that was hit by a massive cyber-attack only a few months ago. HMS Queen Elizabeth is the most expensive aircraft carrier ever to be built for the Royal Navy at over 3 Billion Pounds but it is running on the same IT software system used by the NHS that were targeted by cyber hackers earlier this year. Also HMS Queen Elizabeth is designed to house 36 fast jets. None of which have yet been built. What is the point of an aircraft carrier if there are no aircraft to land on it? As Jeremy Clarkson writing in The Sun put it: ‚Apparently, three of the Anglo-American F-35s will be delivered to the Navy in 2020, then six more the following year. Quite what the crew is supposed to do to defend itself in the meantime is unclear. Use rude gestures, perhaps?‘

And there is the small matter about the usual serial incompetence of the utterly corrupt and incompetent UK Ministry of Defence and its budget planning and project planning when it came to the building and budgeting for HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales. The Ministry of Defence as usual can not organise a tea party in China. Thanks to these two new aircraft carriers there is now a massive 30 Billion Pound black hole in the UK Ministry of Defence’s budget. Several senior Ministry of Defence officials linked to UK defence procurement have in recent weeks resigned while the Ministry of Defence has now had to engage in a behind the scenes, classic Whitehall cover up cost cutting exercise.

The sacrificial lamb for plugging this massive financial black hole so Britain can have two utterly useless, good for nothing, football stadium aircraft carriers without any aircraft will be the Royal Marines and their beach landing ships HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark. 

Churchill would be turning in his grave if he knew that Britain was sacrificing her ability to ‚fight them on the beaches‘ so Michael Fallon can swan around spouting rubbish about how Russia is ‚jealous‘ of these aircraft carriers and more anti-Russian garbage about how: ‚the resurgence of Russian aggression abroad…[is] undermining democracy wherever it can” and how these aircraft carriers represent ‚90% of it – British – 17 million parts. This ship is a floating showcase for British industry, British talent, British skills and British brainpower.‘

Fallon is not the only one spouting absolute lies and anti-Russian rubbish about these aircraft carriers. Sadly, a very weak naive former colleague of mine from the virulently anti-Russian Henry Jackson Society has been getting into Twitter spat after Twitter spat against RT defending these British aircraft carrier pieces of garbage. When will the anti-Russian propaganda of Fallon and James Rogers of the Henry Jackson Society stop. If it were not for the superior strength, grit, determination, continuous effort and heroic courage of the Russian people exemplified most vividly during the Battle of Stalingrad the simple fact is the UK would be the smallest province in the Nazi Third Reich now. But then Rogers is not an academically professionally trained historian. Perhaps some people need to go back to university and do a history degree.

Neue CIA-Kill-Taliban Strategie in Afghanistan: Dummheit oder

Die USA hat entweder die dümmsten Planer und Strategen in ihren Reihen oder aber diese neue Strategie, Taliban mithilfe von Killerkommandos zu töten, hat einen anderen Hintergrund.

Möglicherweise erklärt der Satz „The C.I.A. is expanding its covert operations in Afghanistan, sending small teams of highly experienced officers and contractors alongside Afghan forces to hunt and kill Taliban militants across the country …“ den Grund. In diesem Szenario verdienen die Söldner und Privatarmeen am Krieg in Afghanistan sehr gut und es ist gewährleistet, dass es so schnell kein Abkommen und einen Frieden mit den Taliban gibt. Im Chaos lässt sich die Drogenproduktion ebenfalls gut weiterführen und kontrollieren. Die Taliban hatten sich bis in die späten 1990er Jahre durch Drogen finanziert, um etwa um 2000 ein Schlafmohnanbauverbot durchzusetzen. Im Zuge des 11. Sept 2011 und dem Angriff auf Aghanistan sind die Taliban nun wieder am Drogenhandel beteiligt, auch um ihren Krieg gegen die fremden Truppen zu finanzieren.

 

Phoenix 2.0 – CIA’s Vietnam War Terror Unleashed Upon Afghanistan

Last week the new head of the CIA Mike Pompeo publicly threatened to make the CIA a „much more vicious agency“. His first step towards that is to unleash CIA sponsored killer gangs onto the people of Afghanistan:

The C.I.A. is expanding its covert operations in Afghanistan, sending small teams of highly experienced officers and contractors alongside Afghan forces to hunt and kill Taliban militants across the country

The C.I.A.’s expanded role will augment missions carried out by military units, meaning more of the United States’ combat role in Afghanistan will be hidden from public view.

This is not going to be a counter-insurgency campaign, even when some will assert that. A counter-insurgency campaign requires political, security, economic, and informational components. It can only be successful in support of a legitimate authority.

The current Afghan government has little legitimacy. It was bribed together by the U.S. embassy after wide and open election fraud threatened to devolve into total chaos. In August CIA director Pompeo met the Afghan president Ashraf Ghani and likely discussed the new plan. But the now announced campaign has neither a political nor an economic component. A campaign solely centered on „security“ will end up as a random torture and killing expedition without the necessary context and with no positive results.

The campaign will be a boon for the Taliban. While it will likely kill a some Taliban aligned insurgents here and there, it will also alienate many more Afghan people. Most of the Taliban fighters are locals. Killing them creates new local recruits for the insurgency. It will also give it better population cover for future operations.

A similar campaign during the Vietnam war was known as Operation Phoenix. Then some 50,000 South-Vietnamese, all of course ’suspected communists‘, were killed by the CIA’s roving gangs:

[Phoenix] was designed to identify and „neutralize“ (via infiltration, capture, counter-terrorism, interrogation, and assassination) the infrastructure of the National Liberation Front of South Vietnam (NLF or Viet Cong). The CIA described it as „a set of programs that sought to attack and destroy the political infrastructure of the Viet Cong“. The major two components of the program were Provincial Reconnaissance Units (PRUs) and regional interrogation centers. PRUs would kill or capture suspected NLF members, as well as civilians who were thought to have information on NLF activities. Many of these people were then taken to interrogation centers where many were allegedly tortured in an attempt to gain intelligence on VC activities in the area. The information extracted at the centers was then given to military commanders, who would use it to task the PRU with further capture and assassination missions.

The Phoenix program was embedded into a larger civil political and economic development program known as CORDS. The accepted historical judgement is that Phoenix failed to achieve its purpose despite its wider conceptualization. The passive support for the Viet Cong increased due to the campaign. In recent years there have been revisionists efforts by the Pentagon’s RAND Corporation to change that view.

The now announced campaign looks similar to Phoenix but lacks any political component. It is not designed to pacify insurgents but to eliminate any and all resistance:

The new effort will be led by small units known as counterterrorism pursuit teams. They are managed by C.I.A. paramilitary officers from the agency’s Special Activities Division and operatives from the National Directorate of Security, Afghanistan’s intelligence arm, and include elite American troops from the Joint Special Operations Command. The majority of the forces, however, are Afghan militia members.

There are only a few dozen officers in the CIA Special Activities Division that can support such a campaign. The lede to the article suggests that ‚contractors‘ will have a significant role. In August the former head of the mercenary outlet Blackwater, Eric Prince, lobbied the Trump administration for a contractor led war in Afghanistan. We can safely assume that Prince and some Blackwater offspring will be involved in the new CIA campaign. The major intelligence groundwork though will have to be done by the NDS.

The Afghan National Directorate of Security was build by the CIA from elements of the former Northern Alliance, the opponents of the original Taliban. In the late 1990s the Northern Alliance under Ahmed Shah Massoud was financed by the CIA. Shah Massoud’s intelligence chief Amrullah Saleh, a dual citizen, received CIA training. After the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan Saleh headed the new intelligence service, the NDS. Then President Hamid Karzai fired Saleh in 2010 when he resisted Karzai’s efforts to reconcile with the Taliban. In March 2017 the current President Ashraf Ghani appointed Saleh as State Minister for Security Reforms. Saleh resigned(?) in June after Ghani reached a peace agreement with the anti-government warlord and former Taliban ally Gulbuddin Hekmatyar.

Saleh is an ethnic Tajik and an unforgiving hardliner. He is wary of Pashtun who are the most populous ethnic group in Afghanistan and the base population for the Taliban. Saleh recently founded his own political party. He obviously has further ambitions. He always had excellent relations with the CIA and especially its hardline counter-terrorism center. I find it highly likely that he was involved in the planning of this new campaign.

In the ethnically mixed north of Afghanistan the involvement of NDS led local militia will probably cause large scale ethnic cleansing. In the Pashtun south and east it will lack all local support as such militia have terrorized the country for quite some time:

For years, the primary job of the C.I.A.’s paramilitary officers in the country has been training the Afghan militias. The C.I.A. has also used members of these indigenous militias to develop informant networks and collect intelligence.

The American commandos — part of the Pentagon’s Omega program, which lends Special Operations forces to the C.I.A. — allow the Afghan militias to work together with conventional troops by calling in airstrikes and medical evacuations.

The units have long had a wide run of the battlefield and have been accused of indiscriminately killing Afghan civilians in raids and with airstrikes.

It is utterly predictable how this campaign will end up. The CIA itself has few, if any, independent sources in the country. It will depend on the NDS, stuffed with Saleh’s Tajik kinsmen, as well as on ethnic and tribal militia. Each of these will have their own agenda. A ’security‘ campaign as the planned one depends on reliable intelligence. Who, in this or that hamlet, is a member of the Taliban? For lack of trusted local sources the militia, under CIA or contractor command, will resort to extremely brutal torture. They will squeeze ‚informants‘ and ’suspects‘ until these come up with names of a new rounds of ’suspects‘. Rinse-repeat – in the end all of the ’suspects‘ will be killed.

The new plan was intentionally ‚leaked‘ to the New York Times by „two senior American officials“. It is set into a positive light:

[T]he mission is a tacit acknowledgment that to bring the Taliban to the negotiating table — a key component of Mr. Trump’s strategy for the country — the United States will need to aggressively fight the insurgents.

That claim is of course utter nonsense. The U.S. already has for years „aggressively fought the insurgents“. The Taliban were always willing to negotiate. Their main condition for a peace agreement is that U.S. forces end their occupation and leave the country. The U.S. is simply not willing to do so. Killing more ’suspect‘ Taliban sympathizers will not change the Taliban’s demand nor will it make serious negations more likely.

Five years from now, when the utter brutality and uselessness of the campaign will come into full light, the NYT will be shocked, SHOCKED, that such a campaign could ever have happened.

Posted by b on October 24, 2017 at 06:43 AM | Permalink

Libyen als westlicher Brückenkopf zur Stationierung westlichen Militärs in Afrikas?

Zu Beobachten:

Der Autor erkennt im neu auftauchenden Terrorismus aus Nordafrika die Möglichkeit des Westens (Europa, USA), in ganz Afrika zu intervenieren und so mit Militär in Afrika präsent zu sein.

Zwei Punkte seien ausschlaggebend gewesen: China, das 2009 ein grösseres Handelsvolumen mit ganz Afrika hat als die USA und Gaddafi , der an die Spitze der afrikanischen Union gewählt wurde. Goldwährung => EU-US Intervention

Authored by Dan Glazebrook via RT.com,

Exactly six years ago, on October 20th, 2011, Muammar Gaddafi was murdered, joining a long list of African revolutionaries martyred by the West for daring to dream of continental independence.

Earlier that day, Gaddafi’s hometown of Sirte had been occupied by Western-backed militias, following a month-long battle during which NATO and its ‘rebel’ allies pounded the city’s hospitals and homes with artillery, cut off its water and electricity, and publicly proclaimed their desire to ‘starve [the city] into submission’. The last defenders of the city, including Gaddafi, fled Sirte that morning, but their convoy was tracked and strafed by NATO jets, killing 95 people. Gaddafi escaped the wreckage but was captured shortly afterward. I will spare you the gruesome details, which the Western media gloatingly broadcast across the world as a triumphant snuff movie, suffice to say that he was tortured and eventually shot dead.

We now know, if testimony from NATO’s key Libyan ally Mahmoud Jibril is to be believed, it was a foreign agent, likely French, who delivered the fatal bullet. His death was the culmination of not only seven months of NATO aggression, but of a campaign against Gaddafi and his movement, the West had been waging for over three decades.

Yet it was also the opening salvo in a new war – a war for the militarily recolonization of Africa.

The year 2009, two years before Gaddafi’s murder, was a pivotal one for US-African relations. First, because China overtook the US as the continent’s largest trading partner; and second because Gaddafi was elected president of the African Union.

The significance of both for the decline of US influence on the continent could not be clearer. While Gaddafi was spearheading attempts to unite Africa politically, committing serious amounts of Libyan oil wealth to make this dream a reality, China was quietly smashing the West’s monopoly over export markets and investment finance. Africa no longer had to go cap-in-hand to the IMF for loans, agreeing to whatever self-defeating terms were on offer, but could turn to China – or indeed Libya – for investment. And if the US threatened to cut them off from their markets, China would happily buy up whatever was on offer. Western economic domination of Africa was under threat as never before.

The response from the West, of course, was a military one. Economic dependence on the West – rapidly being shattered by Libya and China – would be replaced by a new military dependence. If African countries would no longer come begging for Western loans, export markets, and investment finance, they would have to be put in a position where they would come begging for Western military aid.

To this end, AFRICOM – the US army’s new ‘African command’ – had been launched the previous year, but humiliatingly for George W. Bush, not a single African country would agree to host its HQ; instead, it was forced to open shop in Stuttgart, Germany. Gaddafi had led African opposition to AFRICOM, as exasperated US diplomatic memos later revealed by WikiLeaks made clear. And US pleas to African leaders to embrace AFRICOM in the ‘fight against terrorism’ fell on deaf ears.

After all, as Mutassim Gaddafi, head of Libyan security, had explained to Hillary Clinton in 2009, North Africa already had an effective security system in place, through the African Union’s ‘standby forces,‘ on the one hand, and CEN-SAD on the other. CEN-SAD was a regional security organization of Sahel and Saharan states, with a well-functioning security system, with Libya as the lynchpin. The sophisticated Libyan-led counter-terror structure meant there was simply no need for a US military presence. The job of Western planners, then, was to create such a need.

NATO’s destruction of Libya simultaneously achieved three strategic goals for the West’s plans for military expansion in Africa. Most obviously, it removed the biggest obstacle and opponent of such expansion, Gaddafi himself. With Gaddafi gone, and with a quiescent pro-NATO puppet government in charge of Libya, there was no longer any chance that Libya would act as a powerful force against Western militarism. Quite the contrary – Libya’s new government was utterly dependent on such militarism and knew it.
Secondly, NATO’s aggression served to bring about a total collapse of the delicate but effective North African security system, which had been underpinned by Libya. And finally, NATO’s annihilation of the Libyan state effectively turned the country over to the region’s death squads and terror groups. These groups were then able to loot Libya’s military arsenals and set up training camps at their leisure, using these to expand operations right across the region.

It is no coincidence that almost all of the recent terror attacks in North Africa – not to mention Manchester – have been either prepared in Libya or perpetrated by fighters trained in Libya. Boko Haram, Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, ISIS, Mali’s Ansar Dine, and literally dozens of others, have all greatly benefited from the destruction of Libya.

By ensuring the spread of terror groups across the region, the Western powers had magically created a demand for their military assistance which hitherto did not exist. They had literally created a protection racket for Africa.

In an excellent piece of research published last year, Nick Turse wrote how the increase in AFRICOM operations across the continent has correlated precisely with the rise in terror threats. Its growth, he said, has been accompanied by “increasing numbers of lethal terror attacks across the continent including those in Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Kenya, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, Somalia, South Sudan, and Tunisia.

In fact, data from the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism at the University of Maryland shows that attacks have spiked over the last decade, roughly coinciding with AFRICOM’s establishment. In 2007, just before it became an independent command, there were fewer than 400 such incidents annually in sub-Saharan Africa. Last year, the number reached nearly 2,000. By AFRICOM’s own official standards, of course, this is a demonstration of a massive failure. Viewed from the perspective of the protection racket, however, it is a resounding success, with US military power smoothly reproducing the conditions for its own expansion.

This is the Africa policy Trump has now inherited. But because this policy has rarely been understood as the protection racket it really is, many commentators have, as with so many of Trump’s policies, mistakenly believed he is somehow ‘ignoring’ or ‘reversing’ the approach of his predecessors. In fact, far from abandoning this approach, Trump is escalating it with relish.

What the Trump administration is doing, as it is doing in pretty much every policy area, is stripping the previous policy of its ‘soft power’ niceties to reveal and extend the iron fist which has in fact been in the driving seat all along. Trump, with his open disdain for Africa, has effectively ended US development aid for Africa – slashing overall African aid levels by one third, and transferring responsibility for much of the rest from the Agency for International Development to the Pentagon – while openly tying aid to the advancement of “US national security objectives.”

In other words, the US has made a strategic decision to drop the carrot in favor of the stick. Given the overwhelming superiority of Chinese development assistance, this is unsurprising. The US has decided to stop trying to compete in this area, and instead to ruthlessly and unambiguously pursue the military approach which the Bush and Obama administrations had already mapped out.

To this end, Trump has stepped up drone attacks, removing the (limited) restrictions that had been in place during the Obama era. The result has been a ramping up of civilian casualties, and consequently of the resentment and hatred which fuels militant recruitment. It is unlikely to be a coincidence, for example, that the al Shabaab truck bombing that killed over 300 people in Mogadishu last weekend was carried out by a man from a town in which had suffered a major drone attack on civilians, including women and children, in August.

Indeed, a detailed study by the United Nations recently concluded that in “a majority of cases, state action appears to be the primary factor finally pushing individuals into violent extremism in Africa.” Of more than 500 former members of militant organizations interviewed for the report, 71 percent pointed to “government action,” including “killing of a family member or friend” or “arrest of a family member or friend” as the incident that prompted them to join a group. And so the cycle continues: drone attacks breed recruitment, which produces further terror attacks, which leaves the states involved more dependent on US military support. Thus does the West create the demand for its own ‘products.‘

It does so in another way as well. Alexander Cockburn, in his book ‘Kill Chain,‘ explains how the policy of ‘targeted killings’ – another Obama policy ramped up under Trump – also increases the militancy of insurgent groups. Cockburn, reporting on a discussion with US soldiers about the efficacy of targeted killings, wrote that:

“When the topic of conversation came round to ways of defeating the [roadside] bombs, everyone was in agreement. They would have charts up on the wall showing the insurgent cells they were facing, often with the names and pictures of the guys running them,“ Rivolo remembers. „When we asked about going after the high-value individuals and what effect it was having, they’d say, ‘Oh yeah, we killed that guy last month, and we’re getting more IEDs than ever.’ They all said the same thing, point blank: ‘[O]nce you knock them off, a day later you have a new guy who’s smarter, younger, more aggressive and is out for revenge.”’

Alex de Waal has written how this is certainly true in Somalia, where, he says, “each dead leader is followed by a more radical deputy. After a failed attempt in January 2007, the US killed Al Shabaab’s commander, Aden Hashi Farah Ayro, in a May 2008 air strike. Ayro’s successor, Ahmed Abdi Godane (alias Mukhtar Abu Zubair), was worse, affiliating the organization with Al-Qaeda. The US succeeded in assassinating Godane in September 2014. In turn, Godane was succeeded by an even more determined extremist, Ahmad Omar (Abu Ubaidah). It was presumably Omar who ordered the recent attack in Mogadishu, the worst in the country’s recent history. If targeted killing remains a central strategy of the War on Terror”, De Waal wrote, “it is set to be an endless war.”

But endless war is the whole point. For not only does it force African countries, finally freeing themselves from dependence on the IMF, into dependence on AFRICOM; it also undermines China’s blossoming relationship with Africa.

Chinese trade and investment in Africa continues to grow apace. According to the China-Africa Research Initiative at John Hopkins University, Chinese FDI stocks in Africa had risen from just two percent of the value of US stocks in 2003 to 55 percent in 2015, when they totaled $35 billion. This proportion is likely to rapidly increase, given that “Between 2009 and 2012, China’s direct investment in Africa grew at an annual rate of 20.5 percent, while levels of US FDI flows to Africa declined by $8 billion in the wake of the global financial crisis”. Chinese-African trade, meanwhile, topped $200 billion in 2015.

China’s signature ‘One Belt One Road’ policy – to which President Xi Jinping has pledged $124 billion to create global trade routes designed to facilitate $2 trillion worth of annual trade – will also help to improve African links with China. Trump’s policy toward the project was summarised by Steve Bannon, his ideological mentor, and former chief strategist in just eight words: “Let’s go screw up One Belt One Road.”

The West’s deeply destabilizing Africa policy – of simultaneously creating the conditions for armed groups to thrive while offering protection against them – goes some way toward realizing this ambitious goal. Removing Gaddafi was just the first step.

Debbie Lusignan glaubt an Fake Terror, ausgeführt als Übung mit Crisis Actors

Debbie Lusignan auch bekannt als sane progressive auf ihrem youtube Kanal glaubt aus den Videos und Fotos und Info herauszusehen, dass es sich um einen gestellten Terrorangriff handelt.

Bei den Präsidentschaftswahlen war Debbie Bernie Sanders Anhängerin und alle ihre Hinweise auf Wahlbetrug waren gut fundiert. Insofern würde ich sie nicht in dieselbe Ecke stellen wie einen Alex Jones von Info Wars. Allerdings kann man leicht Täuschungen aufsitzen, auch wenn man es gut meint.

Daher:alle Quellen und die Interpretation von Debbie mit gesunder Skepsis anschauen.

 

https://www.bitchute.com/video/XAlfWv5uoWmy/

 

 

Here is my two hour summary of my findings of the Las Vegas alleged mass shooting incident. As people are led by the nose by a media that has everyone analyzing Paddock, Campos, and multiple shooters, we are diverted from the ACTUAL story. This is a fake. The shooting is a fake. Stop asking who was the shooter/s and LOOK at what is RIGHT BEFORE YOUR EYES. The question is not who was the shooter, the question is WHAT PRODUCTION COMPANY THEY USED and how they simulated the event and who was involved. Don’t believe me? Watch this video. You will. Go and LOOK for yourself. You will NOT see what they are TELLING you are seeing. LINKS BELOW:
Footage of Pick Up Rescues.
Chicago Tribune Talks About Medics/Cops/Firefighters Storming Scene While Bullets Still Fell:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-las-vegas-shooting-first-responders-20171005-story.html
Las Vegas Review Journal:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtKGnh2-fEM&feature=youtu.be&t=1m1s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5A7hlIhHzw4
CNN:
http://edition.cnn.com/videos/us/2017/10/02/aftermath-of-las-vegas-shooting-von-new-day.cnn
Taylor Winston: Conflicting stories of how he got truck and did THREE trips to rescue victim:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/10/03/hero-marine-steals-truck-drives-vegas-shooting-victims-to-hospital.html
https://countryrebel.com/blogs/videos/former-marine-country-rebel-product-engineer-saves-dozens-during-deadly-vegas-shooting
Employer page links to Taylor’s fb
Christina Kitcat:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4952136/Boyfriend-saved-girlfriend-s-life-Vegas-massacre.html
Bonus. Her brother Michael Lane (her FULL name Christina Lane Kitcat who live in LA ) tells of how she is off all machines and sitting up fine after open heart surgery:
http://www.dailynews.com/2017/10/05/hollywood-woman-undergoes-2nd-surgery-after-las-vegas-mass-shooting/
Christina’s GoFund Me Page run by ‚life long friend‘ Casey Winchell Napolitano who’s fb friends list is a whos who of production company/film/actor/actresses – photos of Casey hospital photos HERE:
https://www.gofundme.com/support-calabasas-vegas-victim
Tina Frost, rescued by anonymous man in pickup truck and wheeled in by’Shane‘ another miracle. Not only will she live (although she allegedly lost eye), latest report is they are going to get ‚their old tina back‘
http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/05/us/mother-thanks-man-for-saving-daughters-vegas-shooting-cnntv/index.html
Another Miracle Recovery.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/10/15/las-vegas-shooting-victim-struck-in-the-head-wakes-from-coma-and-walks/?utm_term=.5e1cde078a77
Mike the Crack Cronk:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEIDs2SxKGE&t=96s
Changes story w Lester Holt:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hEtD4XfbHI
Multiple takes, they realized he didn’t have any blood so he changed his shirt with exact same shirt:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XO5EnT60g3E&t=50s
Another take without shirt:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3bj3PH7PGg
SHOOTING FOOTAGE:
Crowd leaving and even RUNNING before shots fired, they were signaled by pops or ‚they don’t know‘ song que:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCrNsC0mTBg
Various vantages of people on scene showing the shooting occurring, note some videos are spliced with fake footage (that is analyzed in video as well)
Front Stage Footage (Singer runs off stage, no crowd warning, then SPOTLIGHT turned on audience):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miznwQu3WyE
More crowd shots:
MONTAGE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNgTh6Kjo3w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdB8YfWhOSQ
I don’t see anyone actually injured footage:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYrmQdoLhKw&t=146s
Live Leak Links:
Staged Propaganda Video of Shooting Victims Analyzed in Video:
https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4ff_1507067186
Entire SERIES of these, great to get early photos since scrubbed from web and leads to who they actually are, see full profile of user:
https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0f5_1508193075
Las Vegas Review Journal Leads the Coverage to the rest of MSM, owned by Adelson:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/how-a-las-vegas-newspaper-quickly-mobilized-to-cover-a-tragedy/2017/10/02/c37149c0-a794-11e7-850e-2bdd1236be5d_story.html?utm_term=.11aaaf678111
Qui Bono – Truthstream:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNqxUuyHFzc&t=498s
Follow the Money Vegas:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=74&v=tVDVsw6xEpc

Las Vegas Shooter Stephen Paddock, Eine Zusammenfassung

Wie der Autor richtig notiert, sind viele Punkte des Anschlags nicht geklärt und es spricht einiges für eine Mittäterschaft.

Eigene Überlegungen: Warum sind die Vorhänge vor beiden kaputten Scheiben zugezogen? Sie würden den Schützen beim Schiessen eindeutig hindern und auf Videos ist sichtbar, wie sie im Wind hinaus und ins Zimmer hinein wehen. Hätte Paddock den Vorhang nur leicht zur Seite geschoben, dann hätte der lose Teil wie eine Fahne vor seine Waffe wehen können.

Die Anzahl der Schüsse muss sehr hoch sein. Lässt sich genau errechnen, wieviele Patroen er verschossen hat in den 10 Min? Bei über 500 Verletzten und 59 Toten und der Annahme, dass die meisten durch Kugeln verletzt wurden, müssten gegen 600 Kugeln direkt oder als Abpraller Personen getroffen haben. Dass eine Kugel mehrere Leute gleichzeitig verletzt, ist nicht ausgeschlossen, aber eher unwahrscheinlich. Nachweislich haben Personen mehrere Schusswunden, also müssen sie mehrere Kugeln getroffen haben, was wiederum mehr Kugeln insgesamt erforderlich macht, um diese grosse Anzahl an Verletzten und Toten zu erreichen.

Da auf den Videos nachweislich Pausen für das Nachladen? eruierbar sind, die bis zu 30-50 Sekunden ausmachen. Bei Wechsel ist etwa mit 8 Sekunden zu rechnen, also etwa doppeltmso lange wie das Feuern des Magazins. Macht bei 10 Min Schiesserei ungefähr 3,5 Minuten Dauerfeuer.

Mit Bump Stock kann man etwa 8 Kugeln pro Sekunde abfeuern. Andere Quelle sagt bis 14 Kugeln pro Sekunde. Durchschnitt sind 30er Magazine, also in 4 Sekunden leer. und dann muss das Magazin gewechselt werden. Es gibt grössere Magazine mit 50 und 100 Kugeln.

Rechnung: 8x60x3.5 = 1650 Kugeln in 3.5 Minuten Dauerfeuer

Allerdings ging eine AR 15 bei einem Test nach 800 Schuss kaputt. Es müssten daher sicherlich 3 AR 15 nebeneinander benutzt worden sein.

Und es bedeutet, dass mehr als jede 3 Kugel getroffen haben muss in meiner Annahme.

 

Andere Zählung anhand von etwa 5:30 Minuten Video einer Taxifahrerin. Gezählt: 581 Schuss., Wenn wir diese Zeit verdoppeln ergeben sich etwa 1200 Schuss. Auffällig. Kadenz der Schüsse ist unregelmässig und nicht ganz 11 Schuss pro Sekunde.

 

Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.com,

I set aside some time for more details of the Vegas shooting to emerge before writing this article. A few important data points have been released, but I have to say that this remains one of the most confusing terror incidents in decades.

The tactical and strategic thought applied in this attack denotes a sophisticated and experienced shooter, yet, we are told by Stephen Paddock’s family and girlfriend that there was no indication that he had such knowledge or experience. There were some advanced tactical decisions involved in every aspect of the staging of the event, yet, there were also a few glaring mistakes that do not fit. Beyond this, there is evidence that Paddock (the alleged shooter) did not act alone, yet, the official mainstream narrative continues to tell us that he was a lone wolf.

Now, every terror event these days produces an endless supply of alternative theories, some practical and some ridiculous. I will be keeping my theories to a minimum here, because I don’t think they serve much purpose in this instance beyond comfort for those that desperately want explanations. What I will be doing is presenting some questions and pointing out inconsistencies. My goal is merely to show that there is evidence which indicates far more complexity to the Vegas shooting than the mainstream media and federal officials are willing to discuss.

First, lets look at how the attack was staged versus what we are told about the background of Stephen Paddock.

Mass Shooter Psychological Profile

Psychological disposition is the root of tactical behavior.  It is important to note that mass shootings are an extremely rare occurrence despite the propaganda often poured onto the pages of the mainstream media. Psychological profiling of the people behind these crimes is difficult because the number of candidates is very small. There are, however, some common themes.

For example — many mass shooters are motivated by revenge or envy. Shooters often exhibit signs of sociopathy, a self-centered nature and a lack of compassion along with past instances of abuse and violence towards other people and animals. There is also usually a previous history of mental illness. In most cases there is a „triggering event“ which leads to a psychological break and a reaction to violence.

According to the personal accounts from the people that knew Paddock, including his girlfriend, none of these attributes seems to fit. Marilou Danley described him as a „kind and caring man,“ stating that he had never taken any action which would have led her to believe he was capable of such violence. The only factor that stands as evidence of a potential psychological break is the fact that Paddock was prescribed the anti-anxiety drug diazepam months prior, which has been known to cause aggression when taken in larger doses.

Did Paddock take this drug because of unrelated anxiety and did it trigger his shooting spree? Or, was his anxiety caused by the fact that he was already planning a shooting spree and the drug was meant to „take the edge off“ so he could more easily follow through with the attack?

Paddock was prescribed the drug once in 2016 and on June 21st of this year.  I have seen no evidence that he was using the medication in the days before the attack.  The meticulous planning that went into this attack, as well as possible evidence that Paddock was renting rooms adjacent to major musical events for some time, shows that this was not initiated by a psychological break. Rather, there was a considerable level of conscious critical thought and foresight.

There is also no available evidence of domestic instability or financial troubles. Paddock was a multi-millionaire with a successful real estate investment portfolio. He was a former postal worker and tax auditor, as well as an employee for defense contractor Lockheed Martin (I have not seen any statements by Lockheed on what exactly he did for them). It should be noted that Paddock, at age 64, was one of the oldest mass shooters in recent history.

Paddock’s father, a bank robber on the FBI’s Most Wanted list, was not present for the most of the early lives of the children according to his brother, Eric Paddock, which undermines the notion of poor environmental influences.

Eric Paddock claims Stephen also had no strong ideological or religious leanings and simply „didn’t care“ about such matters. Meaning, no apparent ties to extremist views. He had no social media profiles and police claim they have found nothing in his home computers or phones to suggest a philosophical or political motive. So far I have not seen a single concrete and verified piece of evidence proving Paddock believed in anything other than making money, gambling and traveling the world for fun.

I personally find this extremely hard to believe. Stephen Paddock, for all intents and purposes, was positively the perfect „Gray Man,“ a ghost that blended completely into the background, so much so that his own family and girlfriend had no idea that he was amassing the weapons and training needed to pull off the Vegas attack.

The Tactical Know-How Of A Nobody

This is the area which brings up the most questions for me in terms of the Vegas incident. As an avid tactical shooter and long distance shooter, I immediately recognized some strange factors. For instance, the choice of his perch, two adjacent rooms on the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay Hotel, was rather effective for a number of reasons.

If you have the chance to study counter-sniping methodologies or talk with veterans involved in counter-sniping in urban areas, you will learn that the most successful snipers tend to choose mid-ground perches to take shots from. Meaning, they never choose the highest points nor the lowest points, and never shoot from the closest points or the furthest points. Well trained snipers can and do sometimes shoot from 1,000 yards or more, but they prefer to shoot from the „sweet spot“ around 300-400 yards away at an elevated point from an expedient hide in the middle of a building or structure.

They do this because when people (including trained combat soldiers) are shot at, their eyes naturally tend to scan for the highest points in the background and the closest points in the foreground first. Choosing mid-ground positions makes snipers more difficult to pick out quickly and also harder for the average person to shoot back at.

I would note that average, untrained mass shooters are more likely to enter a crowd and start shooting at point blank range in order to ensure hits on targets. Paddock chose the position of a trained shooter, which you can see a photo of in this article by The New Yorker. It was NOT the best possible position, but a very good one.

Paddock’s choice to fire from the position of a large occupied hotel gave a layer of cover to his attack; anyone attempting to suppress him with their own fire would risk hitting innocent people within the building.  Only a person with an understanding of counter-sniping and a scoped rifle would have the ability to stop the attack from outside.  Nevada is a very concealed carry friendly state and attacking a crowd at close range on the ground would be a high risk scenario.  Firing from the Mandalay was the shooter’s most likely chance of a high body count without meeting opposition, as long as he had the proper training.

The first room Paddock used in the Mandalay is in the corner of the 32nd floor with a view of the concert area and the north. It has a diagonal range of around 400 yards and a linear range of around 240 yards. When firing from an elevated position snipers range targets and bullet drop according to the shorter linear range or „true ballistic distance“ (base of the ground to the target) rather than the direct range from their perch to the target. This is because gravity only affects the bullet over the true ballistic distance and elevation in a scope must be adjusted to that distance. It is not as easy as it seems to hit targets from an elevated position, even with an „automatic“ weapon.

It has been recently stated by Las Vegas police that the „note“ found near Paddock’s body was scribbled with calculations for bullet drop from his position. These calculations can be done with newer laser rangefinders, but Stephen apparently chose to do them on paper. Las Vegas Detective Casey Clarkson was on the grounds of the concert during the attack, and recounted „I’m like, how is he so accurate“ (in reference to Paddock) in an interview with 60 Minutes. Yet another piece of evidence showing that Paddock (or someone else) had extensive shooter training.

The two adjacent rooms at the Mandalay offered extensive coverage of possible approaches for first responders. The first room gave the shooter good coverage of the concert and the north approach of Las Vegas Blvd. The second room gave the shooter a very wide angle of coverage to the south approach to the Mandalay as well as the main entrance of the hotel. More tactical know-how on display.

Finally, Paddock allegedly placed small surveillance cameras in the hall approaching his room. A valuable tool which a shooter could use to surprise law enforcement, maintaining a longer period of shooter effectiveness as well as possibly allowing for an escape. Las Vegas police are quoted as stating that it appeared as though Paddock had planned to evade capture. This fits in line with the rest of his tactical staging. His suicide does not.

Things That Don’t Add Up

Again, I am not going to enter into much discussion on theory, here. I am only going to cite some instances of evidence and narrative that, for me, do not make sense.  Let’s begin…

The motive: No apparent motive. Paddock led a life of near luxury, had a happy relationship with his girlfriend and gave no indication to anyone of any instability or ideological affiliation. He had no criminal record. He was also well beyond the average age range of people commonly involved in such crimes. He does not fit any of the characteristics of mass shooters.  Period.

The arsenal: Paddock put a substantial amount of thought and planning into the position of his perch as well as a potential escape. He had the knowledge and experience to calculate accurate shots from an elevated position at distance. But, for some reason the 64-year-old-man decided it was warranted to drag at least 23 guns and hundreds of pounds of ammunition in ten separate suitcases to his room at the Mandalay Bay. A person with the intelligence displayed in the planning of this event would know that most of these rifles were not needed in the slightest to achieve the effect desired. They are dead weight, and moving them into the Mandalay only presented unnecessary risk of discovery. Unless, of course, the original plan involved multiple shooters.

A strange year?: Family and acquaintances have mentioned Paddock’s propensity for „disappearing“ in the year previous to the Vegas attack. And, there is the fact that 33 of the 47 firearms Paddock owned were purchased in the last 12 months.

Security calls:Paddock called hotel security at least twice to complain about „loud music“ on the floor below him the day of the shooting.  Why would a mass shooter care, or take the risk of drawing too much attention to himself?

The windows: Why, after so much careful planning, did Paddock expose his position by smashing two separate windows in his adjacent hotel rooms? There are other ways of providing a shooter’s loophole with less exposure? Very odd.  Almost as if the decision to actually shoot was made suddenly, which does not fit the rest of the narrative or evidence.

„Unrelated“ room alarm leads security right to Paddock: The Las Vegas Sheriffs Department indicates that security was originally led directly to the floor that Paddock was shooting from by a „door alarm“ that was set off by someone three rooms down from him. Now, authorities have been forced to admit that this alarm and the confrontation between security and Paddock took place BEFORE he began his shooting spree.  This means that police should have been alerted to Paddock’s presence and exact location in advance of the attack.  Who set off this alarm which conveniently helped to give away Paddock’s position early, and why?

The surveillance cameras: Paddock had a head start on security, SWAT and anyone else that approached his rooms. He fired at hotel security through his door injuring employee Jesus Campos. He also had thousands of rounds of ammunition including .308 rounds which could easily be fired through several walls on the floor of his hotel room. Why did Paddock prepare for an escape, use his cameras to allow him to fire at hotel security through his door, equip rounds capable of annihilating any SWAT team that stacked up to breach his room, but decided to shoot himself instead before SWAT ever entered? Some people might argue that there is no logic to the mind of a „madman,“ but again, I’ve seen no evidence that Paddock was insane beyond the criminal act itself.  Also, the hotel had its own surveillance in the hall near Paddock’s rooms.  No one noticed the man placing cameras about the area?

Multiple shooters?:Las Vegas County Sheriff Joseph Lombardo is quoted as saying that it was only logical to assume given the evidence that Paddock „had some help at some point“ in the staging of the Vegas attack. To me, this is absolutely clear in the tactical planning.  Paddock does not appear to have the background or training to have chosen and staged the perch.

The report suggesting that a phone charger was found that did not belong to Paddock has since been refuted by police, as well as the report that his card key was used to access his room while Paddock was gone. Of course, hotel surveillance would prove this one way or the other and should be made available to the public.

Still, there are multiple accounts by witnesses that there may have been a second shooter, including the initial reports given by first responders on the scene, who were told a shooter was on the 29th floor as well as the 32nd floor.  All of these accounts have been dismissed as a result of „panic“ and the fog of war.

The mystery woman:A witness on site at the concert stated that a woman (and her apparent boyfriend) approached people near the stage 45 minutes before the attack, telling them that „they were all going to die.“ She was later escorted out of the venue by security. Who was this woman? Was she trying to menace the concertgoers or warn them? Or, was it all coincidence?

Conclusion

In my view, there is simply no way that a man with Stephen Paddock’s history and background committed the Vegas shooting alone.

There is no motive, no clear evidence of mental illness, no ideological markers and nothing to be gained. The tactical expertise displayed in most cases shows considerable training. Theories will abound.

It is possible that he was used. It is also possible that he was secretly radicalized and trained, as ISIS has continuously asserted since the attack. Or, perhaps he never pulled a single trigger and somehow ended up shot through the head in a room full of guns overlooking Las Vegas Blvd. and dozens of dead concertgoers.

The most disturbing aspect of this event and the mainstream narrative, though, is what it insinuates.

It insinuates that anyone no matter how seemingly normal could one day simply „snap“ and murder crowds of people with impunity.

It is the anti-Second Amendment narrative personified, because if „anyone“ is capable of such horror, and motive is nonexistent, then the mere existence of firearm access means that we are surrounded by millions of latent mass shooters.

That is to say, we are supposed to fear everyone around us at all times.

I will write about the solution to this problem in my next article. In the meantime, I suggest everyone ponder on the oddities of this event and continue to ask questions.

Sind die Renten sicher? Ökonomische Gedanken zur Rentenentwicklung

Riesige Schulden und Unterfinanzierung in den Kassen der öffentlichen Alterversorgung stehen einer grösser und älter werdenden Anzahl an Menschen gegenüber, die im Moment nicht bereit sind, länger zu arbeiten und eine kürzere Rentenphase zu haben.

=> Die Versprechen, welche die Rentenversicherung abegegeben haben, sind in der heutigen Form nicht einlösbar. Wir müssen in Zukunft mit einer sehr viel kleineren Rentenauszahlung rechnen, wenn nicht an den einzelnen Stellschrauben Höhe der Einzahlung, Alter, Bezugshöhe… geschraubt wird.

 

Authored by John Mauldin via MauldinEconomics.com,

I’ve written a lot about US public pension funds lately. Many of them are underfunded and will never be able to pay workers the promised benefits – at least without dumping a huge and unwelcome bill on taxpayers.

And since taxpayers are generally voters, it’s not at all clear they will pay that bill.

Readers outside the US might have felt safe reading those stories. There go those Americans again… However, if you live outside the US, your country may be more like ours than you think.

This week the spotlight will be on Europe.

The UK Is Headed to a Retirement Implosion

The UK now has a $4 trillion retirement savings shortfall, which is projected to rise 4% a year and reach $33 trillion by 2050.

This in a country whose total GDP is $3 trillion. That means the shortfall is already bigger than the entire economy, and even if inflation is modest, the situation is going to get worse.

Plus, these figures are based mostly on calculations made before the UK left the European Union. Brexit is a major economic shift that could certainly change the retirement outlook. Whether it would change it for better or worse, we don’t yet know.

A 2015 OECD study found workers in the developed world could expect governmental programs to replace on average 63% of their working-age incomes. Not so bad. But in the UK that figure is only 38%, the lowest in all OECD countries.

This means UK workers must either build larger personal savings or severely tighten their belts when they retire. Working past retirement age is another choice, but it could put younger workers out of the job market.

UK retirees have had a kind of safety valve: the ability to retire in EU countries with lower living costs. Depending how Brexit negotiations go, that option could disappear.

Turning next to the Green Isle, 80% of the Irish who have pensions don’t think they will have sufficient income in retirement, and 47% don’t even have pensions. I think you would find similar statistics throughout much of Europe.

A report this summer from the International Longevity Centre suggested that younger workers in the UK need to save 18% of their annual earnings in order to have an “adequate” retirement income.

But no such thing will happen, so the UK is heading toward a retirement implosion that could be at least as damaging as the US’s.

The Swiss Are No Different Despite the Prudence

Americans often have romanticized views of Switzerland. They think it’s the land of fiscal discipline, among other things. To some extent that’s true, but Switzerland has its share of problems too. The national pension plan there has been running deficits as the population grows older.

Earlier this month, Swiss voters rejected a pension reform plan that would have strengthened the system by raising women’s retirement age from 64 to 65 and raising taxes and required worker contributions.

From what I can see, these were fairly minor changes, but the plan still went down in flames as 52.7% of voters said no.

Voters around the globe generally want to have their cake and eat it, too. We demand generous benefits but don’t like the price tags that come with them. The Swiss, despite their fiscally prudent reputation, appear to be not so different from the rest of us.

This outcome in Switzerland captures the attitude of the entire developed world. Compromise is always difficult. Both politicians and voters ignore the long-term problems they know are coming and think no further ahead than the next election

Switzerland and the UK have mandatory retirement pre-funding with private management and modest public safety nets, as do Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden, Poland, and Hungary.

Not that all of these countries don’t have problems, but even with their problems, these European nations are far better off than some others.

France, Belgium, Germany, Austria, Spain Are in Deep Trouble

The European nations noted above have nowhere near the crisis potential that the next group does: France, Belgium, Germany, Austria, and Spain.

They are all pay-as-you-go countries (PAYG). That means they have nothing saved in the public coffers for future pension obligations, and the money has to come out of the general budget each year.

The crisis for these countries is quite predictable, because the number of retirees is growing even as the number of workers paying into the national coffers is falling.

Let’s look at some details.

Spain was hit hard in the financial crisis but has bounced back more vigorously than some of its Mediterranean peers did, such as Greece. That’s also true of its national pension plan, which actually had a surplus until recently.

Unfortunately, the government chose to “borrow” some of that surplus for other purposes, and it will soon turn into a sizable deficit.

Just as in the US, Spain’s program is called Social Security, but in fact it is neither social nor secure. Both the US and Spanish governments have raided supposedly sacrosanct retirement schemes, and both allow their governments to use those savings for whatever the political winds favor.

The Spanish reserve fund at one time had €66 billion and is now estimated to be completely depleted by the end of this year or early in 2018. The cause? There are 1.1 million more pensioners than there were just 10 years ago. And as the Baby Boom generation retires, there will be even more pensioners and fewer workers to support them.

A 25% unemployment rate among younger workers doesn’t help contributions to the system, either.

Overall, public pension plans in the pay-as-you-go countries would now replace about 60% of retirees’ salaries. Plus, several of these countries let people retire at less than 60 years old. In most countries, fewer than 25% of workers contribute to pension plans. That rate would have to double in the next 30 years to make programs sustainable.

Sell that to younger workers.

The Wall Street Journal recently did a rather bleak report on public pension funds in Europe. Quoting:

Europe’s population of pensioners, already the largest in the world, continues to grow. Looking at Europeans 65 or older who aren’t working, there are 42 for every 100 workers, and this will rise to 65 per 100 by 2060, the European Union’s data agency says. By comparison, the U.S. has 24 nonworking people 65 or over per 100 workers, says the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which doesn’t have a projection for 2060. (WSJ)

While the WSJ story focuses on Poland and the difficulties facing retirees there, the graphs and data in the story make clear the increasingly tenuous situation across much of Europe.

And unlike most European financial problems, this isn’t a north-south issue. Austria and Slovenia face the most difficult demographic challenges, right along with Greece. Greece, like Poland, has seen a lot of its young people leave for other parts of the world.

This next chart compares the share of Europe’s population that 65 years and older to the rest of the regions of the world and then to the share of population of workers between 20 and 64. These are ugly numbers.

Source: WSJ

The WSJ continues:

Across Europe, the birthrate has fallen 40% since the 1960s to around 1.5 children per woman, according to the United Nations. In that time, life expectancies have risen to roughly 80 from 69.

In Poland birthrates are even lower, and here the demographic disconnect is compounded by emigration. Taking advantage of the EU’s freedom of movement, many Polish youth of working age flock to the West, especially London, in search of higher pay. A paper published by the country’s central bank forecasts that by 2030, a quarter of Polish women and a fifth of Polish men will be 70 or older.

Source: WSJ

This Coming Crisis Is Beyond the Power of Politicians

I could go on on reviewing the retirement problems in other countries, but I hope you begin to see the big picture. This crisis isn’t purely a result of faulty politics – though that’s a big contributor.

It’s a problem that is far bigger than even the most disciplined, future-focused governments and businesses can easily handle.

Worse, generations of politicians have convinced the public that their entitlements are guaranteed. Many politicians actually believe it themselves. They’ve made promises they aren’t able to keep and are letting others arrange their lives based on the assumption that the impossible will happen. It won’t.

How do we get out of this jam?

We’re all going to make big adjustments.If the longevity breakthroughs that I expect to happen do so soon (as in the next 10–15 years), we may be able to adjust with minimal pain.We’ll work longer years, and retirement will be shorter, but it will be better because we’ll be healthier.

That’s the best-case outcome, and I think we have a fair chance of seeing it, but not without a lot of social and political travail. How we get through that process may be the most important question we face.

Sharp macroeconomic analysis, big market calls, and shrewd predictions are all in a week’s work for visionary thinker and acclaimed financial expert John Mauldin. Since 2001, investors have turned to his Thoughts from the Frontline to be informed about what’s really going on in the economy. Join hundreds of thousands of readers, and get it free in your inbox every week.

Nächster Überblick über die Anschuldigungen der USA gegenüber Russland

Neue Anschuldigungen wie Wahlmanipulation in 21 Staaten sind dazugekommen, aber innerhalb weniger Tage wieder in sich zusammengebrochen. Special Investigator Müller hat offenbar bislang nur Trumps ehemaligen kurzzeitigen Wahlkampfleiter Paul Manafort an der Angel. Ob dieser allerdings über genügend Riussladkontakte verfügt und man diese als Beeinflussung auslegen kann und wiederum Spuren dann zu Trumps Wahlteam führen, ist nicht gesagt. 

 

Authored by Aaron Mate via TheNation.com,

From accusations of Trump campaign collusion to Russian Facebook ad buys, the media has substituted hype for evidence...

In her new campaign memoir, What Happened, Hillary Clinton reveals that she has followed “every twist and turn of the story,” and “read everything I could get my hands on,” concerning Russia’s role in the 2016 presidential election. “I do wonder sometimes about what would have happened if President Obama had made a televised address to the nation in the fall of 2016 warning that our democracy was under attack,” she writes.

Clinton has had a lot to take in. Since Election Day, the controversy over alleged Russian meddling and Trump campaign collusion has consumed Washington and the national media. Yet nearly one year later there is still no concrete evidence of its central allegations. There are claims by US intelligence officials that the Russian government hacked e-mails and used social media to help elect Donald Trump, but there has yet to be any corroboration. Although the oft-cited January intelligence report “uses the strongest language and offers the most detailed assessment yet,” The Atlantic observed that “it does not or cannot provide evidence for its assertions.” Noting the “absence of any proof” and “hard evidence to back up the agencies’ claims that the Russian government engineered the election attack,” The New York Times concluded that the intelligence community’s message “essentially amounts to ‘trust us.’” That remains the case today.

The same holds for the question of collusion. Officials acknowledged to Reuters in May that “they had seen no evidence of wrongdoing or collusion between the campaign and Russia in the communications reviewed so far.” Well-placed critics of Trump – including former DNI chief James Clapper, former CIA director Michael Morrell, Representative Maxine Waters, and Senator Dianne Feinstein – concur to date.

Recognizing this absence of evidence helps examine what has been substituted in its place.

Shattered, the insider account of the Clinton campaign, reports that “in the days after the election, Hillary declined to take responsibility for her own loss.” Instead, one source recounted, aides were ordered “to make sure all these narratives get spun the right way.” Within 24 hours of Clinton’s concession speech, top officials gathered “to engineer the case that the election wasn’t entirely on the up-and-up.… Already, Russian hacking was the centerpiece of the argument.”

But the focus on Russia has utility far beyond the Clinton camp. It dovetails with elements of state power that oppose Trump’s call for improved relations with Moscow and who are willing to deploy a familiar playbook of Cold War fearmongering to block any developments on that front.

The multiple investigations and anonymous leaks are also a tool to pacify an erratic president whose anti-interventionist rhetoric—by all indications, a ruse—alarmed foreign-policy elites during the campaign. Corporate media outlets driven by clicks and ratings are inexorably drawn to the scandal. The public is presented with a real-life spy thriller, which for some carries the added appeal of possibly undoing a reviled president and his improbable victory.

These imperatives have incentivized a compromised set of journalistic and evidentiary standards. In Russiagate, unverified claims are reported with little to no skepticism. Comporting developments are cherry-picked and overhyped, while countervailing ones are minimized or ignored. Front-page headlines advertise explosive and incriminating developments, only to often be undermined by the article’s content, or retracted entirely. Qualified language—likely, suspected, apparent—appears next to “Russians” to account for the absence of concrete links. As a result, Russiagate has enlarged into a storm of innuendo that engulfs issues far beyond its original scope.

The latest two stories about alleged Trump campaign collusion were initially received as smoking guns. But upon further examination, they may actually undermine that narrative.

One was news that Trump had signed a non-binding letter of intent to license his name for a proposed building in Moscow as he ran for the White House. Russian-born developer Felix Sater predicted to Trump lawyer Michael Cohen that the deal would help Trump win the presidency. “I will get Putin on this program and we will get Donald elected,” Sater wrote, believing that voters would be impressed that Trump could make a real-estate deal with the United States’ “most difficult adversary.” The New York Times describes the outcome:

There is no evidence in the emails that Mr. Sater delivered on his promises, and one email suggests that Mr. Sater overstated his Russian ties. In January 2016, Mr. Cohen wrote to Mr. Putin’s spokesman, Dmitri S. Peskov, asking for help restarting the Trump Tower project, which had stalled. But Mr. Cohen did not appear to have Mr. Peskov’s direct email, and instead wrote to a general inbox for press inquiries.

 

The project never got government permits or financing, and died weeks later.

Peskov has confirmed he ended up seeing the e-mail from Cohen, but did not bother to respond. The story does raise a potential conflict of interest: Trump pursued a Moscow deal as he praised Putin on the campaign trial. But it is hard to see how a deal that never got off the ground is of more importance than actual deals Trump made in places like Turkey, the Philippines, and the Persian Gulf. If anything, the story should introduce skepticism into whether any collusion took place: The deal failed, and Trump’s lawyer did not even have an e-mail address for his Russian counterparts.

The revelation of Sater’s e-mails to Cohen followed the earlier controversy of Rob Goldstone offering Donald Trump Jr. incriminating information on Hillary Clinton as “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.” Goldstone’s e-mail was more fruitful than Sater’s in that it yielded a meeting, albeit one that Trump Jr. claims he abandoned after 20 minutes. Those who deem the Sater-Goldstone e-mail chains incriminating or even treasonous should be reminded of their provenance: Sater is known as “a canny operator and a colorful bullshitter” who has “launched a host of crudely named websites—including IAmAFaggot.com and VaginaBoy.com… to attack a former business partner.” Meanwhile, Goldstone is a British tabloid journalist turned music publicist. One does not have to be an intelligence expert to doubt that they are Kremlin cut-outs.

Then there is Facebook’s disclosure that fake accounts “likely operated out of Russia” paid $100,000 for 3,000 ads starting in June 2015. The New York Times editorial board described it as “further evidence of what amounted to unprecedented foreign invasion of American democracy.” A $100,000 Facebook ad buy seems unlikely to have had much impact in a $6.8 billion election. According to Facebook, “the vast majority of ads…didn’t specifically reference the US presidential election, voting or a particular candidate” but rather focused “on amplifying divisive social and political messages across the ideological spectrum—touching on topics from LGBT matters to race issues to immigration to gun rights.” Facebook also says the majority of ads, 56 percent, were seen “after the election.” The ads have not been released publicly. But by all indications, if they were used to try to elect Trump, their sponsors took a very curious route.

The ads are commonly described as “Russian disinformation,” but in the most extensive reporting on the story to date, The Washington Post adds multiple qualifiers in noting that the ads “appear to have come from accounts associated with the Internet Research Agency,” itself a Kremlin-linked firm (emphasis added).

The Post also reveals that an initial Facebook review of the suspected Russian accounts found that they “had clear financial motives, which suggested that they weren’t working for a foreign government.” Furthermore, “the security team did not find clear evidence of Russian disinformation or ad purchases by Russian-linked accounts.” But Russiagate logic requires a unique response to absent evidence: “The sophistication of the Russian tactics caught Facebook off-guard.”

The Post adds how Russian “sophistication” was overcome:

As Facebook struggled to find clear evidence of Russian manipulation, the idea was gaining credence in other influential quarters.

 

In the electrified aftermath of the election, aides to Hillary Clinton and Obama pored over polling numbers and turnout data, looking for clues to explain what they saw as an unnatural turn of events.

 

One of the theories to emerge from their post-mortem was that Russian operatives who were directed by the Kremlin to support Trump may have taken advantage of Facebook and other social media platforms to direct their messages to American voters in key demographic areas in order to increase enthusiasm for Trump and suppress support for Clinton.

 

These former advisers didn’t have hard evidence that Russian trolls were using Facebook to micro-target voters in swing districts—at least not yet—but they shared their theories with the House and Senate intelligence committees, which launched parallel investigations into Russia’s role in the presidential campaign in January.

The theories paid off. A personal visit in May by Democratic Senator Mark Warner, vice-chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, “spurred the company to make some changes in how it conducted its internal investigation.” Facebook’s announcement in August of finding 3,000 “likely” Russian ads is now an ongoing “scandal” that has dragged the company before Congressional committees.

Other election threats loom. A recent front-page New York Times article linking Russian cyber operations to voting irregularities across the United States is headlined, “Russian Election Hacking Efforts, Wider Than Previously Known, Draw Little Scrutiny.” But read on and you’ll discover that there is no evidence of “Russian election hacking,” only evidence-free accusations of it. Voting problems in Durham, North Carolina, “felt like tampering, or some kind of cyberattack,” election monitor Susan Greenhalgh says, and “months later…questions still linger about what happened that day in Durham as well as other counties in North Carolina, Virginia, Georgia and Arizona.” There is one caveat: “There are plenty of other reasons for such breakdowns—local officials blamed human error and software malfunctions—and no clear-cut evidence of digital sabotage has emerged, much less a Russian role in it.”

The evidence-free concern over Russian hacking expanded in late September when the Department of Homeland Security informed 21 states that they had been targeted by Russian cyber-operations during the 2016 election. But three states have already dismissed the DHS claims, including California, which announced that after seeking “further information, it became clear that DHS’s conclusions were wrong.”

Recent elections in France and Germany saw similar fears of Russian hacking and disinformation—and similar results. In France, a hack targeting the campaign of election winner Emmanuel Macron ended up having “no trace,” of Russian involvement, and “was so generic and simple that it could have been practically anyone,” the head of French cyber-security quietly explained after the vote. Germany faced an even more puzzling outcome: Nothing happened. “The apparent absence of a robust Russian campaign to sabotage the German vote has become a mystery among officials and experts who had warned of a likely onslaught,” the Post reported in an article headlined “As Germans prepare to vote, a mystery grows: Where are the Russians?” The mystery was so profound that The New York Times also explored it days later: “German Election Mystery: Why No Russian Meddling?”

Following this evidentiary praxis, Russia can be blamed for matters far beyond Western elections. After the recent white-supremacist violence in Charlottesville, foreign-policy consultant Molly McKew issued a widely circulated appeal on Twitter: “We need to have a conversation about what is happening today in Charlottesville & Russian influence, and operations, in the United States.” (McKew recently testified at a US government hearing on “The Scourge of Russian Disinformation.”)

Writing for CNN, Yale Law School’s Asha Rangappa asserted that Charlottesville “highlighted again the problem of Russia.” Sure, Rangappa concedes, “there is no evidence to date that Russia is directly supporting extreme right groups in the United States.” But Russian government ties to the European far-right “when viewed through the lens of Trump’s response to Charlottesville, suggests an opening for Russian intelligence to use domestic hate groups as a vehicle for escalating their active measures inside the United States.”

Linking Russia to right-wing American racists contrasts with just a few months prior, when it was fashionable to tie Russia to the polar opposites. In March, intelligence-community witnesses soberly testified to Congress that Russia’s “21st-century cyber invasion” has “tried to sow unrest in the U.S. by inflaming protests such as Occupy Wall Street and the Black Lives Matter movement.” The evidence presented for this claim was that both movements were covered by the Russian state-owned television network RT.

Russian-linked tweets about NFL players kneeling during the national anthem to protest racial injustice show the Russians “trying to push divisiveness in this country,” says Republican Senator James Lankford. A Russian-linked ad about Black Lives Matter aimed at audiences in Ferguson and Baltimore “tells us…that the Russians who bought these ads were sophisticated enough to understand that targeting a Black Lives Matter ad to the communities…would help sow political discord.… the goal here was really about creating chaos,” says CNN reporter Dylan Byers.

But this story might actually tell us a lot more about the attitudes of pundits and lawmakers towards their audiences. On top of the 3,000 ads identified by Facebook, Twitter has now informed Congress of around 200 accounts “linked to Russian interference in the 2016 election.” Twitter has 328 million users. To suggest 200 accounts out of 328 million could have had an impact is as much an insult to common sense as it is to basic math. It also suggests Black Lives Matter protesters in places like Ferguson and Baltimore were unwitting foreign agents who needed Russian social-media prodding to march in the streets. To protest racism is not to sow “chaos” and “political discord,” but to protest racism.

Because the ads may have originated in Russia, it is widely taken for granted that they were part of an alleged Russian government plot. Few have considered a different scenario, pointed out by the journalist Max Blumenthal, that the ads could have been like those from any other troll farm: clickbait to attract page views.

Some who focus on Russiagate may be acting from the real fear and disorientation that follows from the victory of the most unqualified and unpredictable president in history. But those who partake, particularly those in positions of privilege, should consider that Russiagate offers them a safe and anodyne way to “Resist.” For privileged Americans to challenge Trump mainly over Russia is to do so in a way that avoids confronting their own relationship to the economic and political system that many of his voters rebelled against. “If the presidency is effectively a Russian op, if the American presidency right now is the product of collusion between the Russian intelligence services and an American campaign,” to borrow a scenario posed by Rachel Maddow, then there is nothing else to confront.

But economic discontent, along with voter suppression, the Democratic Party’s failures to reach voters, and corporate media that gave endless attention to Trump’s empty promises and racial animus, are among the issues cast aside by the incessant focus on Russigate, as are the very real US-Russia tensions that do not fit the narrative.

Amid widespread talk of Putin pulling the strings, Trump has quietly appointed anti-Russia hawks to key posts and admitted a new NATO member over Russian objections. Trump’s top military commander, Gen. Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is backing an effort by the Pentagon and Congress to arm Ukraine with new weapons. President Obama had rejected a similar proposal out of fear it would inflame the country’s deadly conflict. Just before Russia’s recent war games with allied Belarus, the United States and NATO allies carried out their “biggest military exercise in eastern Europe since the Cold War” right next door.

These tensions only stand to worsen in a political climate in which diplomacy with Russia is seen as a weakness, and in which challenging it through sanctions and militarism is one of the few areas of bipartisan agreement. Conflict with a nuclear power may threaten the future annihilation of many, but it offers immediate benefits for some. “NATO concerns about Russia are seen as a positive for the defense industry,” the business press notes in reporting that military stocks have reached “all-time highs.” As have the ratings of MSNBC, the cable network that has pushed Russiagate more than any other.

Those unbound by Russiagate’s offerings need not succumb to them. Trump didn’t get to the White House via Russia, but by falsely portraying himself as a populist champion. The only con he will be undone by is his own.

Eindrückliche Darstellung der Verseuchung des Pazifiks durch radioaktiven Abfall aus Fukushima

Die Radioaktivität des Pazifiks ist 5-10 Mal so hoch im Vergleich zur Zeit, als die USA Atombomben im Pazifik hochgehen liessen.

 

 

Submitted by Whitney Webb via TrueActivist.com,

The nuclear disaster has contaminated the world’s largest ocean in only five years and it’s still leaking 300 tons of radioactive waste every day.

An energy map provided by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) shows the intensity of the tsunami in the Pacific Ocean caused by the magnitude 8.9 earthquake which struck Japan on March 11, 2011. Thousands of people fled their homes along the Pacific coast of North and South America on Friday as a tsunami triggered by Japan's massive earthquake reached the region but appeared to spare it from major damage. REUTERS/NOAA/Center for Tsunami Research/Handout (UNITED STATES - Tags: DISASTER ENVIRONMENT) FOR EDITORIAL USE ONLY. NOT FOR SALE FOR MARKETING OR ADVERTISING CAMPAIGNS. THIS IMAGE HAS BEEN SUPPLIED BY A THIRD PARTY. IT IS DISTRIBUTED, EXACTLY AS RECEIVED BY REUTERS, AS A SERVICE TO CLIENTS

What was the most dangerous nuclear disaster in world history? Most people would say the Chernobyl nuclear disaster in Ukraine, but they’d be wrong. In 2011, an earthquake, believed to be an aftershock of the 2010 earthquake in Chile, created a tsunami that caused a meltdown at the TEPCO nuclear power plant in Fukushima, Japan. Three nuclear reactors melted down and what happened next was the largest release of radiation into the water in the history of the world. Over the next three months, radioactive chemicals, some in even greater quantities than Chernobyl, leaked into the Pacific Ocean. However, the numbers may actually be much higher as Japanese official estimates have been proven by several scientists to be flawed in recent years.

fukushima-debris-island

If that weren’t bad enough, Fukushima continues to leak an astounding 300 tons of radioactive waste into the Pacific Ocean every day. It will continue do so indefinitely as the source of the leak cannot be sealed as it is inaccessible to both humans and robots due to extremely high temperatures.

It should come as no surprise, then, that Fukushima has contaminated the entire Pacific Ocean in just five years. This could easily be the worst environmental disaster in human history and it is almost never talked about by politicians, establishment scientists, or the news. It is interesting to note that TEPCO is a subsidiary partner with General Electric (also known as GE), one of the largest companies in the world, which has considerable control over numerous news corporations and politicians alike. Could this possibly explain the lack of news coverage Fukushima has received in the last five years? There is also evidence that GE knew about the poor condition of the Fukushima reactors for decades and did nothing. This led 1,400 Japanese citizens to sue GE for their role in the Fukushima nuclear disaster.

Even if we can’t see the radiation itself, some parts of North America’s western coast have been feeling the effects for years. Not long after Fukushima, fish in Canada began bleeding from their gills, mouths, and eyeballs. This “disease” has been ignored by the government and has decimated native fish populations, including the North Pacific herring. Elsewhere in Western Canada, independent scientists have measured a 300% increase in the level of radiation. According to them, the amount of radiation in the Pacific Ocean is increasing every year. Why is this being ignored by the mainstream media? It might have something to do with the fact that the US and Canadian governments have banned their citizens from talking about Fukushima so “people don’t panic.”

dead-starfish

Further south in Oregon, USA, starfish began losing legs and then disintegrating entirely when Fukushima radiation arrived there in 2013. Now, they are dying in record amounts, putting the entire oceanic ecosystem in that area at risk. However, government officials say Fukushima is not to blame even though radiation in Oregon tuna tripled after Fukushima. In 2014, radiation on California beaches increased by 500 percent. In response, government officials said that the radiation was coming from a mysterious “unknown” source and was nothing to worry about.

However, Fukushima is having a bigger impact than just the West coast of North America. Scientists are now saying that the Pacific Ocean is already radioactive and is currently at least 5-10 times more radioactive than when the US government dropped numerous nuclear bombs in the Pacific during and after World War II. If we don’t start talking about Fukushima soon, we could all be in for a very unpleasant surprise.

Zur Erinnerung: MSNBC diskutiert Zensur via Staat oder durch Facebook und Twitter selbst

Aus den Aussagen wird klar, dass das Panel mehr Angst um seine Deutungshoheit hat und deshalb gegen Twitter und Facebook argumentiert.

Für die Problematik „wer sagt, was gesagt werden darf“ haben sie keine Löung ausser „man erkennt ja auch falsche Dollarnoten“.

 

Authored by Chris Reeves via NewsBusters.org,

On Friday’s Morning Joe, Willie Geist hosted a panel to discuss the latest news on the Russian hacking narrative regarding Facebook ads that were purportedly used by Russian intelligence to stoke „racial tensions“ during the 2016 presidential election.

The panel’s primary reaction, with only one dissenting voice, was to call for increased government „regulation“ and financial “penalties in the hundreds of millions” to shut down alleged Russian influencers.

The segment started off with Geist introducing the latest reporting on the topic:

GEIST: Twitter says it has shut down more than two-hundred accounts that were tied to the same Russian operatives who bought political ads on Facebook. Of the 450 accounts released by Facebook as part of its investigation, Twitter was able to match 22 of them to its own site. The disclosure by Twitter followed a briefing by company officials to staffers of the Senate and House Intel committees yesterday. Following that meeting, the top Democrat on the Senate committee, Mark Warner, slammed Twitter for its presentation.

 

SEN. MARK WARNER [D-VA]: [playing clip] The presentation that the Twitter team made to the Senate Intel staff today was deeply disappointing. The notion that their work was basically derivative based upon accounts that Facebook had identified showed enormous lack of understanding from the Twitter team of how serious this issue is, the threat it poses to democratic institutions, and, again, begs many more questions than they offered.

 

(…)

 

GEIST: The top Democrat on the House Intel Committee, Adam Schiff, also weighed in on Twitter’s briefing to his committee, releasing a statement that read, in part: „… it is clear that Twitter has significant forensic work to do to understand the depth and breadth of Russian activity during the campaign. This additional analysis will require far more robust investigation into how Russian actors used their platform as a part of their active measures campaign…“

Without any perceptible degree of skepticism about the Democratic Congressmen’s claims, Geist then teed up Nicolle Wallace, host of the MSNBC afternoon show Deadline: White House, to talk about social media and the 2016 election more generally:

GEIST: You do get the sense, Nicolle, that Facebook, Twitter, social media was totally clueless about what was happening on their sites during the 2016 campaign.

 

WALLACE: It’s worse than that […]. The social media companies are sort of like the worst stereotype of a Republican political organization. They’re reactive, they’re opaque, they’re defensive, they are very slow to understand the value of transparency. They’re totally lawyered up, lobbied up. And they are as a culture, the hubris of thinking that they’re all about the public good, when if you take a low-tech analogy, it’s basically like someone got mugged in your backyard and their position is: well, it’s not our problem, I mean, we just bought the lot on which the house was built, not our problem.

Donny Deutsch chimed in his agreement with Wallace’s analysis, mainly to suggest that perhaps internet news sites and social media sites need government regulation to make sure that what they post or allow up is accurate:

DEUTSCH: [T]here’s a tremendous irony with these guys, because, the tech guys, these young-, are, are the ones who are revolutionizing the world for betterment, yet the irony is, if I wanna take an ad out on NBC or anyplace else for a laundry detergent, the things I have to go through-

 

WALLACE: [interrupting] It has to work, it has to be real, you have to be real. Right!

 

DEUTSCH: [continues talking over Wallace] -[…] to prove that it’s got 5% more blue crystals in it, yet there is no regulati[on]. There is nothing more important for us, for people watching this show over the next ten and twenty years as the regulation of these companies. They control the flow of communication. […] [W]hat’s happening here, as far as our power versus what’s happening over here [points to his smart phone], multiply it a thousand-fold and there is no regulation.

Ah, so here we see one of the real reasons for wanting to regulate internet-based news content: it’s out-competing (supposedly) respectable news outlets like MSNBC!

After Deutsch floated the idea of government censorship to get the internet under control, Wallace decided to try her hand at stand-up comedy, declaring:

“One difference though is that we have quality controls, we have standards. […] [A]nd they [internet/social media] should be held to the same standards.”

Well, if we all only had to adhere to MSNBC’s standard for truth, that would make our jobs here much easier!

But on a more serious note, Geist subsequently moved the segment forward to allow New York Times reporter Yamiche Alcindor to summarize her latest findings on “racially divisive Russian ads on Facebook.” Alcindor said:

Facebook admitted to members of the Congressional Black Caucus as well as the subcommittee on the House Oversight Committee that there were ads that were targeting Black Lives Matter and targeting, specifically, ethnic groups […] and allowing people to target, not only for Russian influence, but also target housing ads, employment ads.

 

[…]

 

[A] lot of the members of the Congressional Black Caucus are fuming because they’re saying that Russia actually exploited a lot of the racial divisions that already exist in America and used both Facebook and Twitter […] in this way to essentially make people hate each other more.

So, Alcindor and the Congressional Black Caucus think that decades of the Democratic Party and the far left exploiting racial divisions for political gain was totally normal and fine, but now, they demand aggressive government action to stop it when it is being used by the Russians?

Without addressing this glaringly obvious point, the segment then moved in a much more interesting direction as Geist turned to Noah Rothman, associate editor of Commentary Magazine, for his opinion on the whole Russia matter. Although Rothman acceded to the larger narrative about Russians hacking the DNC and weaponizing social media, he did offer some true background to the current story:

First, you probably have to know that Russian intelligence is going to exploit anything they possibly can to do precisely what she was talking about. This isn’t new, this is the Kremlin playbook. They have been exacerbating racial tensions in the United States since there [has been] a Russian intelligence organization. As recently as 2014, you had RT talking about police tyranny and an Afro-Maidan, referring to the Ukrainian revolution that ousted the former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych. This is what Russia does. So if you’re a media institution and you know that Moscow is going to target your audience, you have to be proactive and aware of that. And, as you say, you have, you had gatekeepers in most institutions. Institutions that are not, you know, aware that they’re going to be targeted are the most irresponsible, I would say. But I’m not sure that regulation is something that you can even entertain. This is about responsibility.

Rothman’s point about past Soviet infiltration of the United States was correct, if lacking somewhat in details. Rothman would have done well to point out, in contrast to his characterization of Russian government-owned or funded media, that they actually frequently take stances in support of left-wing causes if those causes serve to diminish America’s international moral authority, particularly as regards anti-war narratives or movements like Black Lives Matter.

It was also refreshing to see someone push back against Wallace and Deutsch’s calls for government censorship and control over the Internet, but that didn’t last. Mark Halperin ultimately decided to make the most straightforward case for the federal government to crack down on „Russian operatives“ and fake news with the support of both Wallace and Deutsch:

HALPERIN: [T]here’s some interesting intellectual debates to be had around all this stuff to be sure. But these companies are American companies making a lot of money, dominating our lives, hiding behind a lot of intellectual arguments. And, as the Congressional members of both parties are saying publicly and privately, they are using lobbyists and PR executives and their own platforms to try to limit the disclosure that they make to be accountable. American democracy is under siege and they are hiding behind intellectual arguments.

 

[Deutsch tries to speak at same time as Wallace, then stops]

 

WALLACE: And it’s ongoing. I mean, they were involved, some of these Russian-linked Twitter accounts were involved last weekend in helping to sow-

 

EDDIE GLAUDE JR.: [interjecting] Exactly.

 

GEIST: [mumbles agreement] Right.

 

WALLACE: -hatred around the debate about the NFL. This isn’t, we’re not at a forensic stage where we’re gonna look back at what they did in 2016, we’re not even there yet. This is still-

 

HALPERIN: [interrupting] The bombs are still falling.

 

WALLACE: Right.

 

ROTHMAN: [tries to speak, hard to hear] Wait, to what extent is there even a recourse?

 

DEUTSCH: [interrupting] By the way, we can regulate, I’m gonna give you, we can regulate, we can regulate this. We start-, instead of the FCC, it’s the FDC. The Federal Digital Communications company. And there is a body, a governing body there, regulatory body, that when something like this happens, the, the economic consequence, the penalties in the hundreds of millions, you hit ‘em in the pocketbook, they’ll figure it out.

There are a lot of amazing comments here, particularly from Halperin and Deutsch.

It’s not completely clear what Deutsch means by using a „FDC“ „regulatory body“ to financially cripple people (or who precisely those people/organizations would be, although based on his following comments it might be Facebook and Twitter that would suffer fines in his mind). However, Halperin’s characterization of protecting people’s right to freedom of speech, guaranteed by the First Amendment, as “hiding behind intellectual arguments” was most chilling.

Thankfully, Rothman stepped in to voice some cogent defense of arguably this country’s most important founding principle: “I suppose there’s any number of ways in which the federal government could target an institution that is a media institution that provides a platform for the exercise of the First Amendment. What is the limiting principle there? At what point are we targeting speech that we simply don’t like?”

After a brief pause and Deutsch simply interjecting “um,” Wallace tried her Ministry of Truth argument out again:

WALLACE: Well you can’t yell […] fire in a movie theater if it’s not true. I mean-

 

ROTHMAN: [interrupting] You can if it’s on fire.

 

WALLACE: Well, I think the point on Twitter is that some of these things are not true, and-

 

ROTHMAN: [interrupting] That’s, incitement to violence is one thing-

 

WALLACE: -Twitter, Twitter and Facebook have done nothing. I mean money,-

 

ROTHMAN: -and it’s extremely difficult to prove incitement to violence.

 

WALLACE: -mon-, money has a seal to, so that we know when a dollar is real, when a dollar is counterfeit. There are groups that are trying to get the social media companies to have some sort of water seal or to verify the content, the veracity of it.

It was fun to see Rothman trying, ever so subtly, to point out the basic problem with Wallace’s argument, namely: who determines what is and is not true?

But then Halperin, skirting by having to address Rothman’s concerns, decided to seal the deal and make his position extremely clear: “[T]he government shouldn’t be the recourse at first, it should be the boards of these companies.” That is, if Facebook and Twitter don’t start censoring in the right way or to the right extent, then Big Brother should do it himself.

It’s nice to know that the media’s support for the free speech rights of NFL football players extends to all of us rubes too!

The panel closed out the lengthy segment by chuckling at the prospect of quick action to „figure out“ this „problem“ and never addressed the more fundamental question about whether or not what they were proposing was anathema to the U.S. Constitution, either in law or spirit.

We strongly suggest putting down all sharp objects before watching the following…