Aug 302014

False Flag Alert of September 11, 2014:

As the US Government and it’s criminal Representatives in Congress and the mockingbird media set up ISIS as the new “all-powerful” Boogeyman to be feared, Lt. General McInerney says, “We May Not Have Seen the Last of Flight 370″ and that we should go to DEFCON 1. Astoundingly, he claims we might see MH370 re-emerge on 9/11/2014! Meanwhile, Mike Honda, a criminal Democrat from California has introduced a Bill to BAN Americans from buying or owning body armor. As I detail at 23:40 in this interview, we see FALSE FLAG operations again and again, with the underwear bomber, on 7/7 in London, and on 9/11 to name just a few recent examples. Beware of the very real possibility of yet another False Flag event in the days, weeks and months ahead.

Aug 302014

New Special Edition Video Added to…

Blog: http://www.suspicious0bserverscollect…
Major Warnings/Alerts:
S0 Notes on Solar Shutdown:…
IPCC History:…

Donate memberships for others:

Today’s Featured Links:
US Hot and Cold:…
Temp Recprds:…
Flooding in Manitoba:…

Original music by NEMES1S [Get NEMES1S Music!]


Earth WindMap:…
Global Maps:…
NDBC Buoys:
HurricaneZone Satellite Images:…
NOAA Environmental Visualization Laboratory:
Satellite Maps:…
Forecast Maps:…
TORCON:… [Tornado Forecast for the day]
GOES Satellites:
Severe Weather Threats:…
Canada Weather Office Satellite Composites:…
Temperature Delta:…

SOHO Solar Wind:
Planetary Orbital Diagram – Ceres1 JPL:…
GOES Xray:…
Gamma Ray Bursts:
BARTOL Cosmic Rays:…
NOAA Sunspot Classifications:…
GONG Magnetic Maps:…

MISC Links:
JAPAN Radiation Map:
RSOE: [That cool alert map I use]

Aug 302014

Zero Hedge

Despite border closures, flight bans, cordoning off the sick (and healthy), and rubber (and live) bullets and tear gas on ‘protesters’; the world’s worst outbreak of Ebola just keeps spreading, now to a sixth African nation. Just day after Congo (5th nation) reported cases of Ebola, as The BBC reports, Senegal’s health minister confirmed the first case of Ebola in his nation yesterday and Bloomberg confirms 20 more people are “under surveillance.” Meanwhile, in Guinea a Red Cross official said riots had broken out in the nation’s 2nd largest city over rumors that health workers had infected people with the virus; and Nigerians are protesting plans to build isolation units in some local clinics. “contained”

Read More

Aug 302014

Zero Hedge

Confirming Europe’s realization just how serious events are, and how far down the rabbit hole Europe’s bureaucrats have gone, French President Francois Hollande, while stressing that a failure by Russia to reverse a flow of weapons and troops into eastern Ukraine would force the bloc to impose new economic measures i.e., nothing new, it is what he said just after that indicated a dramatic change in rhetoric: “Are we going to let the situation worsen, until it leads to war?” Hollande said at a news conference. “Because that’s the risk today. There is no time to waste.”

Read More

Aug 302014

Zero Hedge


Against the background we initialliy explained here, and the escalation we discussed here, Imran Khan’s “Pakistan Spring” has grown dramatically. The former cricketing-legend and erstwhile opposition leader’s call for people to take to the streets to demand new ‘unrigged’ elections has 1000s of protesters breaching the Prime Minister’s residence in Islamabad. Along with anti-government cleric Tahirul Qadri, Khan urged peaceful protest but, as AP reports, an estimated 20,000 police in riot gear are blocking the procession using tear gas and rubber bullets. Local hospitals report at least 100 injuries.

Read More

Aug 302014

Zero Hedge

The Islamic State is nothing if not ambitious. Despite no record of current ‘airplane’ assets in their annual reports, ISIS has begun detaining and forcing Syrian pilots to train militant fighters to fly stolen aircraft. According to CNN Arabic, the pilots (and their planes and helicopters) were abducted when the terrorist group gained control of Tabqa military base. It appears that if beheadings, executions, and whippings are not enough to strike fear into the hearts of the locals, then (just as America is tryiung to do), an air assault will greatly demoralize. We can only imagine how this changes Obama’s strategy (and just where are all the rest of Syria and Iraq’s airplanes stored?)

Read More

Aug 302014

Source: New Eastern Outlook


While the US government still claims it is fighting a “War on Terror”, it is often forgotten that the US government has a friendly relationship with many terrorist groups around the world. This relationship is not merely historical, but current.

The US government often supports terrorists who are fighting against governments which oppose Wall Street and are seeking to developing independently. Many terrorists, who commit all kinds of violent crimes against humanity, are being directly supported by the US government at this time.

Here are ten examples of US government supported terrorists from around the world.

1. Luis Posada Carrilles. Carrilles is an anti-Communist Cuban who has worked with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) since the early 1960s. His biggest terrorist act was blowing up a Cuban airline in 1976 killing 78 innocent people. He also admits to being involved in a string of bombings in Cuban hotels during the 1990s. After Carrilles entered the United States illegally, even the US Department of Justice proclaimed he is “an admitted mastermind of terrorist plots and attacks.”Cuba and Venezuela have attempted to extradite him so he can stand trial for his bombing of civilian airlines and other brutal terrorist acts, but the US government has refused. Carrilles currently lives in Miami, and is treated as a hero by fanatical anti-Communists.

2. The People’s Mujahadeen of Iran (MKO) This is a group of Iranian terrorists who were once enemies of the United States. In the early 1970s they bombed the offices of Pan-American Airlines and Shell Oil, and even attempted to kidnap the US ambassador. After Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution, the organization carried out a campaign of bombings and assassinations against the new government. The MKO even worked with Saddam Hussein during the bloody Iraq-Iran war.

Currently, the group has a very friendly relationship with the US government. As it works to destabilize and overthrow the Islamic Republic of Iran, it has the support of former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, as well other prominent elected officials. In 2012, the group was removed from the US list of foreign terrorist organizations. Amnesty International and other human rights organizations have documented that the MKO tortures, kidnaps, and commits all kinds of atrocities. It has been revealed that the US government has been providing MKO with weapons and money for decades.

3. The Syrian “Revolutionaries” 
In Syria, a number of armed groups are engaged in a struggle to overthrow the government. All of them have received some support from Washington, whether directly or indirectly. The Free Syrian Army has gotten weapons and money directly from the US government. Other factions have received US support from proxy regimes like Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar and Jordan.

The United Nations Commission on the Rights of a Child reports that the terrorists in Syria have children as young as 11 and 12 among their ranks.

The insurgents in Syria are largely not even Syrian, but recruited from other parts of the region. They kidnap for ransom. They torture and behead their victims. They bomb schools, Mosques, churches, and other civilian targets.

Money and support continues to flow into their hands. Western media portrays them as romantic revolutionaries, and US leaders repeat their demand that “Assad must go.”

Interestingly, ISIS, which is now in Iraq, started out among these terrorists seeking to overthrow the Syrian government. Just like all the other armed groups fighting the Syrian government, they also have received support from the US in the name of “protecting human rights.”

4. Venezuela’s “Opposition” Hugo Chavez was first democratically elected as President of Venezuela in 1999. In 2002, the military kidnapped him and attempted to carry out a coup. The people of Venezuela poured into the streets to support their president, the rank and file soldiers revolted, and he was brought back into power.

Since that time Venezuela’s government has begun what it calls “the Bolivarian Process” and proclaims that it is moving toward socialism. The US has supported and funded violent right-wing protests against the government.

Earlier this year, the violent Anti-Bolivarian terrorists attacked the Ministry of Public Works and Housing. They building caught on fire, and 89 children were evacuated for safety.

The terrorists also unleashed petrol bombs on the Experimental University of the Armed Forces. They bombs destroyed the library, the laboratories, and other facilities. Two days after bombing the University, the anti-government forces returned and shot a National Guard officer who was guarding the campus.

The terrorists in Venezuela seek to overthrow the United Socialist Party and its allies, despite the democratic elections and the overwhelming public support for the government. The terrorists are supported by US media, which proclaims them to be “defending human rights” against “dictators.” The US government has directly supplied the violent anti-government protest movement in Venezuela with millions of dollars.

5. Tibetan Separatists 
Until the 1950s, Tibet was an theocratic autocracy. The monks had complete authority, and disobeying them meant having your eyes removed, hands cuff off, or being killed.

When the Chinese Communist Party took power, and the Tibetan peasants rose up against the Monks, this changed everything. Modern Tibet, like the rest of China, has a booming economy with hospitals, schools, education, and a rising standard of living.

Since the 1950s, the US has been arming Tibetan separatists who seek to reverse these changes. The Dalia Lama’s brother Gyalo Thodup led a division of Tibetan monks who received military training in Colorado. They were then air-dropped into Tibet, where they waged a bloody insurgency campaign, assassinating Communist Party leaders, destroying homes, hospitals, and schools. Former CIA agents document this campaign of violence in the 2002 book “The CIA’s Secret War in Tibet.”

Since then the US funded Tibetan Separatists have not given up their ugly campaign of violence. In racist riots, they have gone through the streets attacking and killing ethnically Han Chinese people.  Tibetan Separatists in France even assaulted a Chinese athlete Jin Jing, as she carried the olympic torch in her wheel chair.

6. The “Contras” in Nicaragua After the 1979 revolution the Sandinistas began attempting to reconstruct Nicaragua. They carried out literacy campaigns and set up healthcare clinics.
The United States funded an armed group of “Counter Revolutionaries” or “Contras.” These armed thugs tortured, murdered, kidnapped, and committed all kinds of ugly crimes against humanity. Roman Catholic priests and Nuns were among their victims.
Millions of dollars were funneled to the Contras from the United States in order to carry out their crimes.
Currently, as Sandinista Leader Daniel Ortega has returned to power, the Contras have re-emerged. The right-wing in Nicaragua, which seeks to overturn the elected government hails the terrorist murderers of the 1980s as its ideological heritage as they seek to destabilize the country, and violently intimidate those who seek to move the country away from free market neo-liberalism.

7. The Libyan “Revolutionaries” 
In 2011, a group of armed terrorists began working to overthrow the Libyan government led by Moammar Gaddafi. They were directly linked to the United States, receiving US guns and weapons, and having planned their revolt years in advance at conferences in Europe.The anti-government forces in Libya regularly lynched dark skinned guest workers from southern Africa. They also engaged in torture and kidnapping. Many of them were mercenaries from other parts of the world, shipped in to fight the Libyan government.

These forces were defeated on the battlefield numerous times by the Libyan government, which had the clear support of the population.

It took a bombing campaign from the United States and its NATO allies to overthrow the Libyan government and put these terrorists in power. Since that time, Libya remains in a state of chaos as various factions among the rebels compete for power.

Libya once had the highest life expectancy on the African continent, but the US supported campaign of terrorist violence and the NATO bombs, have reduced the country to rubble.

8. Right Sector 
Right Sector started as a group of right-wing soccer fans in Ukraine. It has transformed into a paramilitary organization of Neo-Nazis. Its members wave the swastika and praise Adolf Hitler for “liberating” Ukraine from the Communists and slaughtering local Jews.

The Right Sector was a prominent section of the “Euro-Maiden” protests in 2014 that ousted the elected Ukrainian government. This protest movement received millions of dollars in support from the United States and various Non-Governmental Organizations.

Since people in Eastern and Southern Ukraine have risen up and demanded independence, members of the Right Sector have piled into East Ukraine to slaughter people. In Odessa, Right Sector members burned a Trade Union House, killing 42 people.

Its members continue to pour into Eastern Ukraine to fight against the local population. The US has been firm its in defense and support for the Ukrainian government, even as it mobilizes these terrorists.

9. The Jewish Defense League 
The Jewish Defense League is a group of committed Zionists who openly use violence against those they consider to harmful to Israel.  The group was started by Rabbi Meir Kahane in New York City and violently attacked Palestine protests. The group assassinated Alex Odeh, leader of the Arab American Anti-Discrimination Committee. They also attempted to assassinate Darrell Issa, a US congressman.

The JDL worked with the FBI to attack the Black Panther Party and all who protested in support of Palestine. The group carried out a string of bombings in late 1980s against Soviet diplomats in the United States. It even firebombed a performance by the Soviet State Symphony Orchestra in 1986.

The group has been officially dissolved in the US, but openly operates in Canada and France.

Israel has even outlawed officially the organization, after its members opened fire on Muslims kneeling to pray in the West Bank, killing 29 of them in 1994.

However, the relationship between these violent Zionist extremists and the US government is not over. Dov Hikind, a prominent New York City Politician, openly brags about his past membership in the group, and is unapologetic about the terrorism the group carried out.

In recent weeks, the Israeli police and military have coordinated with JDL sympathizers who chant the name of Meir Kahane, and violently attack peace demonstrators.

10. The Ku Klux Klan These violent racist terrorists functioned for decades as a state sponsored organization. The group was formed in the aftermath of the US Civil War to attack recently freed slaves, and was led by former Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest.

It was revived in 1915 by Thomas Dixon, the close friend of then President Woodrow Wilson. Dixon wrote a novel “The Clansmen”, which was transformed into the first full length movie ever made “The Birth of a Nation.”

With President Wilson’s blessing, the film was screened all around the country, provoking lynchings and race riots. Shortly after the movie was released, the Ku Klux Klan was re-founded at a mass rally in Stone Mountain, Georgia.

With many police officers, politicians, and even a Supreme Court Justice among its ranks, the group had free reign to murder people all throughout the country. It most common target was African-Americans, though it also went after Roman Catholics, Jews, Eastern Europeans, Feminists, Labor Unionists, and others it deemed to be “Un-American.”

The group was known for bombing churches, raiding and burning homes, as well as kidnapping and raping people.

Throughout most of the Klan’s history, it has had the support of law enforcement and military officials.

In 1979 the Ku Klux Klan assassinated five members of the Communist Workers Party in Greensboro, North Carolina. It has been revealed that this assassination, known as the Greensboro Massacre, was carried out with direction from the US federal government, including the Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms, and Tobacco.

Caleb Maupin is a political analyst and activist based in New York. He studied political science at Baldwin-Wallace College and was inspired and involved in the Occupy Wall Street movement, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Article source:

Aug 302014

Source: Washington’s Blog

A U.S. congressman for 6 years,  who is now a talking head on MSNBC (Joe Scarborough) says that – even if the Saudi government backed the 9/11 attacks – Saudi oil is too important to do anything about it:

This is not an isolated incident. It is a microcosm of U.S.-Saudi relations.

By way of background, former MI6 agent Alastair Crooke notes that Saudi Arabia was founded with terrorism:

One dominant strand to the Saudi identity pertains directly to Muhammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab (the founder of Wahhabism), and the use to which his radical, exclusionist puritanism was put by Ibn Saud. (The latter was then no more than a minor leader — amongst many — of continually sparring and raiding Bedouin tribes in the baking and desperately poor deserts of the Nejd.)


Abd al-Wahhab demanded conformity — a conformity that was to be demonstrated in physical and tangible ways. He argued that all Muslims must individually pledge their allegiance to a single Muslim leader (a Caliph, if there were one). Those who would not conform to this view should be killed, their wives and daughters violated, and their possessions confiscated, he wrote. The list of apostates meriting death included the Shiite, Sufis and other Muslim denominations, whom Abd al-Wahhab did not consider to be Muslim at all.


Abd al-Wahhab’s advocacy of these ultra radical views inevitably led to his expulsion from his own town — and in 1741, after some wanderings, he found refuge under the protection of Ibn Saud and his tribe. What Ibn Saud perceived in Abd al-Wahhab’s novel teaching was the means to overturn Arab tradition and convention. It was a path to seizing power.

Ibn Saud’s clan, seizing on Abd al-Wahhab’s doctrine, now could do what they always did, which was raiding neighboring villages and robbing them of their possessions. Only now they were doing it not within the ambit of Arab tradition, but rather under the banner of jihad. Ibn Saud and Abd al-Wahhab also reintroduced the idea of martyrdom in the name of jihad, as it granted those martyred immediate entry into paradise.


Their strategy — like that of ISIS today — was to bring the peoples whom they conquered into submission. They aimed to instill fear. In 1801, the Allies attacked the Holy City of Karbala in Iraq. They massacred thousands of Shiites, including women and children. Many Shiite shrines were destroyed, including the shrine of Imam Hussein, the murdered grandson of Prophet Muhammad.

A British official, Lieutenant Francis Warden, observing the situation at the time, wrote: “They pillaged the whole of it [Karbala], and plundered the Tomb of Hussein… slaying in the course of the day, with circumstances of peculiar cruelty, above five thousand of the inhabitants …”

Osman Ibn Bishr Najdi, the historian of the first Saudi state, wrote that Ibn Saud committed a massacre in Karbala in 1801. He proudly documented that massacre saying, “we took Karbala and slaughtered and took its people (as slaves), then praise be to Allah, Lord of the Worlds, and we do not apologize for that and say: ‘And to the unbelievers: the same treatment.’”

In 1803, Abdul Aziz then entered the Holy City of Mecca, which surrendered under the impact of terror and panic (the same fate was to befall Medina, too). Abd al-Wahhab’s followers demolished historical monuments and all the tombs and shrines in their midst. By the end, they had destroyed centuries of Islamic architecture near the Grand Mosque.


With the advent of the oil bonanza — as the French scholar, Giles Kepel writes, Saudi goals were to “reach out and spread Wahhabism across the Muslim world … to “Wahhabise” Islam, thereby reducing the “multitude of voices within the religion” to a “single creed” — a movement which would transcend national divisions. Billions of dollars were — and continue to be — invested in this manifestation of soft power.


It was this heady mix of billion dollar soft power projection — and the Saudi willingness to manage Sunni Islam both to further America’s interests, as it concomitantly embedded Wahhabism educationally, socially and culturally throughout the lands of Islam — thatbrought into being a western policy dependency on Saudi Arabia, a dependency that has endured since Abd-al Aziz’s meeting with Roosevelt on a U.S. warship (returning the president from the Yalta Conference) until today.


The more radical Islamist movements were perceived by Western intelligence services as being more effective in toppling the USSR in Afghanistan — and in combatting out-of-favor Middle Eastern leaders and states.Why should we be surprised then, that from Prince Bandar’s Saudi-Western mandate to manage the insurgency in Syria against President Assad should have emerged a neo-Ikhwan type of violent, fear-inducing vanguard movement: ISIS?

Frontline notes:

Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, founder of “Wahhabism,” an austere form of Islam, arrives in the central Arabian state of Najd in 1744 preaching a return to “pure” Islam. He seeks protection from the local emir, Muhammad ibn Saud, head of the Al Saud tribal family, and they cut a deal. The Al Saud will endorse al-Wahhab’s austere form of Islam and in return, the Al Saud will get political legitimacy and regular tithes from al-Wahhab’s followers. The religious-political alliance that al-Wahhab and Saud forge endures to this day in Saudi Arabia.

By the 19th century, the Al Saud has spread its influence across the Arabian Peninsula, stretching from the Red Sea to the Persian Gulf and including the Two Holy Cities of Mecca and Medina.


By 1945, the U.S. urgently needs oil facilities to help supply forces fighting in the Second World War. Meanwhile, security is at the forefront of King Abd al-Aziz’s concerns. President Franklin Roosevelt invites the king to meet him aboard the U.S.S. Quincy, docked in the Suez Canal. The two leaders cement a secret oil-for-security pact: The king guarantees to give the U.S. secure access to Saudi oil and in exchange the U.S. will provide military assistance and training to Saudi Arabia and build the Dhahran military base.

U.S. presidents have been extremely close to the Saudi monarchs ever since.

The Progressive notes:

The ideology of the Saudi regime is that of ISIS even if the foreign policies differ,” California State University-Stanislaus Professor Asad AbuKhalil tells The Progressive.


Wahhabi Islam [the official ideology of the Saudi monarchy] is fully in sync with ISIS.”

But instead of isolating the Saudi regime from the global mainstream, President Obama paid a visit there earlier this year, meeting with King Abdullah. He reportedly did not discuss the regime’s dubious conduct.

“I can’t think of a more pernicious actor in the region,” British-Pakistani author Mohsin Hamid told me in an interview last year. “The House of Saud has exported this very pernicious form of militant Islam under U.S. watch. Then the United States comes in repeatedly to attack symptoms of this problem without ever addressing the basic issue: Where does it all come from? Who’s at the heart of this thing? It would be like saying that if you have skin rash because of cancer, the best option is to cut off your skin. It doesn’t make any sense.”

Yet, the United States continues with this approach.

Even establishment opinion is recognizing the dimensions of the Saudi problem.

“It can’t be exporting extremism and at the same time ask the United States to protect it,” Retired General (and onetime presidential contender) Wesley Clark recently told CNN.

“Al Qaeda, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, Boko Haram, the Shabab and others are all violent Sunni Salafi groupings,” Ed Husain of the Council on Foreign Relations recently wrote in the New York Times. “For five decades, Saudi Arabia has been the official sponsor of Sunni Salafism [another term for Wahhabism] across the globe.”

Such entities “have been lavishly supported by the Saudi government, which has appointed emissaries to its embassies in Muslim countries who proselytize for Salafism,” he adds.


Then-U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton wrote in a December 2009 leaked diplomatic cable that entities in Saudi Arabia were the “most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide.”


Yet the United States keeps mum because the Saudi monarchy serves U.S. interests. Due to its pivotal role in OPEC, it makes sure that crude oil prices don’t rise above a certain level. It is a key purchaser of American weapons. It invests in U.S. government bonds. And it has acted in the past as proxy for covert U.S. actions, such as funneling arms and funding to the Nicaraguan contras.


Until Saudi Arabia stops sponsoring the most reactionary brands of Sunni Islam, this U.S. ally will remain responsible for much of the mayhem in the Muslim world.

The Independent headlines “Iraq crisis: How Saudi Arabia helped Isis take over the north of the country”:

Some time before 9/11, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, once the powerful Saudi ambassador in Washington and head of Saudi intelligence until a few months ago, had a revealing and ominous conversation with the head of the British Secret Intelligence Service, MI6, Sir Richard Dearlove. Prince Bandar told him: “The time is not far off in the Middle East, Richard, when it will be literally ‘God help the Shia’. More than a billion Sunnis have simply had enough of them.”


There is no doubt about the accuracy of the quote by Prince Bandar, secretary-general of the Saudi National Security Council from 2005 and head of General Intelligence between 2012 and 2014, the crucial two years when al-Qa’ida-type jihadis took over the Sunni-armed opposition in Iraq and Syria. Speaking at the Royal United Services Institute last week, Dearlove, who headed MI6 from 1999 to 2004, emphasised the significance of Prince Bandar’s words, saying that they constituted “a chilling comment that I remember very well indeed”.

He does not doubt that substantial and sustained funding from private donors in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, to which the authorities may have turned a blind eye, has played a central role in the Isis surge into Sunni areas of Iraq. He said: “Such things simply do not happen spontaneously.” This sounds realistic since the tribal and communal leadership in Sunni majority provinces is much beholden to Saudi and Gulf paymasters, and would be unlikely to cooperate with Isis without their consent.


Unfortunately, Christians in areas captured by Isis are finding this is not true, as their churches are desecrated and they are forced to flee. A difference between al-Qa’ida and Isis is that the latter is much better organised; if it does attack Western targets the results are likely to be devastating.


Dearlove … sees Saudi strategic thinking as being shaped by two deep-seated beliefs or attitudes. First, they are convinced that there “can be no legitimate or admissible challenge to the Islamic purity of their Wahhabi credentials as guardians of Islam’s holiest shrines”. But, perhaps more significantly given the deepening Sunni-Shia confrontation, the Saudi belief that they possess a monopoly of Islamic truth leads them to be “deeply attracted towards any militancy which can effectively challenge Shia-dom”.

Western governments traditionally play down the connection between Saudi Arabia and its Wahhabist faith, on the one hand, and jihadism, whether of the variety espoused by Osama bin Laden and al-Qa’ida or by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi’s Isis. There is nothing conspiratorial or secret about these links: 15 out of 19 of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis, as was Bin Laden and most of the private donors who funded the operation.


But there has always been a second theme to Saudi policy towards al-Qa’ida type jihadis, contradicting Prince Bandar’s approach and seeing jihadis as a mortal threat to the Kingdom. Dearlove illustrates this attitude by relating how, soon after 9/11, he visited the Saudi capital Riyadh with Tony Blair.

He remembers the then head of Saudi General Intelligence “literally shouting at me across his office: ’9/11 is a mere pinprick on the West. In the medium term, it is nothing more than a series of personal tragedies. What these terrorists want is to destroy the House of Saud and remake the Middle East.’” In the event, Saudi Arabiaadopted both policies, encouraging the jihadis as a useful tool of Saudi anti-Shia influence abroad but suppressing them at home as a threat to the status quo. It is this dual policy that has fallen apart over the last year.

Saudi sympathy for anti-Shia “militancy” is identified in leaked US official documents. The then US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton wrote in December 2009 in a cable released by Wikileaks that “Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qa’ida, the Taliban, LeT [Lashkar-e-Taiba in Pakistan] and other terrorist groups.”


Saudi Arabia and its allies are in practice playing into the hands of Isiswhich is swiftly gaining full control of the Sunni opposition in Syria and Iraq.


For all his gargantuan mistakes, Maliki’s failings are not the reason why the Iraqi state is disintegrating. What destabilised Iraq from 2011 on was the revolt of the Sunni in Syria and the takeover of that revolt by jihadis, who were often sponsored by donors in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait and United Arab Emirates. Again and again Iraqi politicians warned that by not seeking to close down the civil war in Syria, Western leaders were making it inevitable that the conflict in Iraq would restart. “I guess they just didn’t believe us and were fixated on getting rid of [President Bashar al-] Assad,” said an Iraqi leader in Baghdad last week.


Saudi Arabia has created a Frankenstein’s monster over which it is rapidly losing control. The same is true of its allies such as Turkey which has been a vital back-base for Isis and Jabhat al-Nusra by keeping the 510-mile-long Turkish-Syrian border open.

As we’ve extensively documented, the Saudis and the U.S. backed the radical “madrassas” in which Islamic radicalism was spread.

Indeed, the U.S. is backing the most radical Muslim terrorists in the world: the Salafis, who are heavily concentrated in Saudi Arabia, while overthrowing the more moderate Arabs.

Postscript: And you know the barbaric beheadings by ISIS? The Saudis do that in spades. In the first half of August, there were 19 beheadings, including one for “sorcery”. The 345 reported executions between 2007 and 2010 were all carried out by public beheading. Sometimes, Saudi courts order the accused to be beheaded … and then have the severed body be crucified.

Article source:

Aug 302014

Source: Carlos Miller, PINAC

It was an embarrassing moment for the New Jersey borough of Helmetta, a viral video showing one of their cops saying he doesn’t have to follow the Constitution because President Obama doesn’t follow the Constitution.

The video forced Helmetta police officer Richard Racine to resign from his part-time job, where he was double-dipping into taxpayer’s money while collecting a pension after retiring from another New Jersey police department.

Now the Helmetta borough council figures it doesn’t have to follow the Constitution either by introducing an ordinance forbidding photography and video recording inside government buildings.

According to the official council minutes posted online, the ordinance is only a “first reading” and needs to be approved by borough attorney David Clark, who apparently hasn’t brushed up on Constitutional law considering it has even gone this far.

This will be an Ordinance prohibiting taking of pictures and recordings in the buildings of
Helmetta and will be supplied by Borough Attorney David Clark.

Steven Wronko, who recorded the video of Racine, said it needs to go through a second reading before it passes, which takes place next month.

Full article here

Article source:

Aug 292014

Source: Washington’s Blog

Mainstream, Hawkish Group Blames the West for the Mess In Ukraine

We’ve previously reported that it’s the West’s encirclement of Russia – breaking a key promise which led to the break-up of the Soviet Union – which is behind the Ukraine crisis.

We’ve also noted:

The U.S. State Department spent more than $5 billion dollars in pushing Ukraine towards the West.  The U.S. ambassador to Ukraine (Geoffrey Pyatt) and assistant Secretary of State (Victoria Nuland) were also recorded plotting the downfall of the former Ukraine government in a leaked conversationTop-level U.S. officials literally handed out cookies to the protesters who overthrew the Ukrainian government.

And the U.S. has been doing everything it can to trumpet pro-Ukrainian and anti-Russian propaganda. So – without doubt – the U.S. government is heavily involved with fighting a propaganda war regarding Ukraine.

The news is starting to go mainstream …

Specifically, the Council On Foreign Relations (CFR) is a very mainstream, hawkish group.

CFR’s flagship publication – Foreign Affairs – has just published a piece blaming the Ukraine crisis on the West.

The piece by John Mearsheimer – in it’s September/October 2014 issue – accurately notes:

The United States and its European allies share most of the responsibility for the crisis. The taproot of the trouble is NATO enlargement, the central element of a larger strategy to move Ukraine out of Russia’s orbit and integrate it into the West. At the same time, the EU’s expansion eastward and the West’s backing of the pro-democracy movement in Ukraine — beginning with the Orange Revolution in 2004 — were critical elements, too. Since the mid-1990s, Russian leaders have adamantly opposed NATO enlargement, and in recent years, they have made it clear that they would not stand by while their strategically important neighbor turned into a Western bastion. For Putin, the illegal overthrow of Ukraine’s democratically elected and pro-Russian president — which he rightly labeled a “coup” — was the final straw. He responded by taking Crimea, a peninsula he feared would host a NATO naval base, and working to destabilize Ukraine until it abandoned its efforts to join the West.  Putin’s pushback should have come as no surprise. After all, the West had been moving into Russia’s backyard and threatening its core strategic interests, a point Putin made emphatically and repeatedly. Elites in the United States and Europe have been blindsided by events only because they subscribe to a flawed view of international politics.


U.S. and European leaders blundered in attempting to turn Ukraine into a Western stronghold on Russia’s border. Now that the consequences have been laid bare, it would be an even greater mistake to continue this misbegotten policy.


The West’s final tool for peeling Kiev away from Moscow has been its efforts to spread Western values and promote democracy in Ukraine and other post-Soviet states, a plan that often entails funding pro-Western individuals and organizations. Victoria Nuland, the U.S. assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, estimated in December 2013 that the United States had invested more than $5 billion since 1991 to help Ukraine achieve “the future it deserves.” As part of that effort, the U.S. government has bankrolled the National Endowment for Democracy. The nonprofit foundation has funded more than 60 projects aimed at promoting civil society in Ukraine, and the NED’s president, Carl Gershman, has called that country “the biggest prize.” After Yanukovych won Ukraine’s presidential election in February 2010, the NED decided he was undermining its goals, and so it stepped up its efforts to support the opposition and strengthen the country’s democratic institutions.

When Russian leaders look at Western social engineering in Ukraine, they worry that their country might be next. And such fears are hardly groundless. In September 2013, Gershman wrote in The Washington Post, “Ukraine’s choice to join Europe will accelerate the demise of the ideology of Russian imperialism that Putin represents.” He added: “Russians, too, face a choice, and Putin may find himself on the losing end not just in the near abroad but within Russia itself.”

The West’s triple package of policies — NATO enlargement, EU expansion, and democracy promotion — added fuel to a fire waiting to ignite. The spark came in November 2013, when Yanukovych rejected a major economic deal he had been negotiating with the EU and decided to accept a $15 billion Russian counteroffer instead. That decision gave rise to antigovernment demonstrations that escalated over the following three months and that by mid-February had led to the deaths of some one hundred protesters. Western emissaries hurriedly flew to Kiev to resolve the crisis. On February 21, the government and the opposition struck a deal that allowed Yanukovych to stay in power until new elections were held. But it immediately fell apart, and Yanukovych fled to Russia the next day. The new government in Kiev was pro-Western and anti-Russian to the core, and it contained four high-ranking members who could legitimately be labeled neofascists.

Although the full extent of U.S. involvement has not yet come to light, it is clear that Washington backed the coup. Nuland and Republican Senator John McCain participated in antigovernment demonstrations, and Geoffrey Pyatt, the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, proclaimed after Yanukovych’s toppling that it was “a day for the history books.” As a leaked telephone recording revealed, Nuland had advocated regime change and wanted the Ukrainian politician Arseniy Yatsenyuk to become prime minister in the new government, which he did. No wonder Russians of all persuasions think the West played a role in Yanukovych’s ouster.


Putin’s actions should be easy to comprehend. A huge expanse of flat land that Napoleonic France, imperial Germany, and Nazi Germany all crossed to strike at Russia itself, Ukraine serves as a buffer state of enormous strategic importance to Russia. No Russian leader would tolerate a military alliance that was Moscow’s mortal enemy until recently moving into Ukraine. Nor would any Russian leader stand idly by while the West helped install a government there that was determined to integrate Ukraine into the West.

Washington may not like Moscow’s position, but it should understand the logic behind it. This is Geopolitics 101: great powers are always sensitive to potential threats near their home territory. After all, the United States does not tolerate distant great powers deploying military forces anywhere in the Western Hemisphere, much less on its borders. Imagine the outrage in Washington if China built an impressive military alliance and tried to include Canada and Mexico in it. Logic aside, Russian leaders have told their Western counterparts on many occasions that they consider NATO expansion into Georgia and Ukraine unacceptable, along with any effort to turn those countries against Russia — a message that the 2008 Russian-Georgian war also made crystal clear.


In [a] 1998 interview, [the top American expert on Russia, George] Kennan predicted that NATO expansion would provoke a crisis, after which the proponents of expansion would “say that we always told you that is how the Russians are.” As if on cue, most Western officials have portrayed Putin as the real culprit in the Ukraine predicament.

Mearsheimer gives a way out of this mess:

There is a solution to the crisis in Ukraine, however — although it would require the West to think about the country in a fundamentally new way. The United States and its allies should abandon their plan to westernize Ukraine and instead aim to make it a neutral buffer between NATO and Russia, akin to Austria’s position during the Cold War. Western leaders should acknowledge that Ukraine matters so much to Putin that they cannot support an anti-Russian regime there. This would not mean that a future Ukrainian government would have to be pro-Russian or anti-NATO. On the contrary, the goal should be a sovereign Ukraine that falls in neither the Russian nor the Western camp.


The United States and its European allies now face a choice on Ukraine. They can continue their current policy, which will exacerbate hostilities with Russia and devastate Ukraine in the process — a scenario in which everyone would come out a loser. Or they can switch gears and work to create a prosperous but neutral Ukraine, one that does not threaten Russia and allows the West to repair its relations with Moscow. With that approach, all sides would win.

Will saner heads prevail, and back away from the abyss before it’s too late?

And see this.