R.K. Locke Wrote:Remember this story?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2905392/Hollywood-screenwriter-mysteriously-killed-20-years-ago-working-CIA-hands-sent-autopsy-200-years-old.html

R.K. Locke Wrote:Remember this story?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2905392/Hollywood-screenwriter-mysteriously-killed-20-years-ago-working-CIA-hands-sent-autopsy-200-years-old.html

Quote:According to Tatum, a deal was arranged in the early mid-eighties between VP George Bush, Panama's Manuel Noriega and the Iranian leadership.A sum of US$8 billion deposited in the Banco Nacional de Panama on behalf of Colombian Cocaine king, Pablo Escobar was "lent" to George Bush.Of this, US$4 billion was shipped by plane to Iran where it was exchanged at a ratio of one good bill for two counterfeit bills.On the return trip, the aircraft, an 707 cargo container carried two shrink-wrapped pallets containing US$4 billion each.The 707 arrived at Howard/Albrook Air Force base in Panama where the pallets were off-loaded under armed guard of the Panamanian military.The counterfeit notes were re-deposited back into Escobar's account at the Panama central bank.Under no circumstances could the counterfeit bills be permitted to leave the bank vault - for fear of devaluing the US currency with forged notes - and active steps would later be taken to ensure this.

Quote:Edward Snowden Ridicules David Cameron For Defending Private' Matter Of Panama Papers Leak

Buuuuurn.


05/04/2016 13:17 | Updated 21 hours ago

20 K

• [*=center]
  [*=center]
  [*=center]
  [*=center]
  

• [*=left]
  Aubrey AllegrettiNews reporter, HuffPost UK
  

The man hailed by some as one of personal privacy's greatest defenders has expressed surprise at a statement made by David Cameron about the Panama Papers leaked on Sunday.
Edward Snowden, the National Security Agency whistleblower who in 2013 revealed numerous covert global surveillance programs, was shocked by the PM's insistence that his father's implication in the list of high-profile tax avoiders was "a private matter".
The late Ian Cameron's Blairmore Holdings Inc company, set up in the 1980s, managed tens of millions of pounds for the wealthy but has not ever paid tax on UK profits.

JOHNNY GREEN/PA ARCHIVE

David Cameron greeting his father Ian during the general election campaignDespite there being no suggestion that the avoidance arrangement or others exposed by the leak were anything but entirely legal, Cameron responded to the news saying:

That is a private matter, I am focused on what the government is doing"

But that defence didn't wash well with Snowden, who was less than impressed at Cameron's answer after the prime minister had repeatedly criticised him for leaking classified information.
In a post on Twitter on Monday, Snowden wrote simply in response to a Reuters story on Cameron's response: "Oh, now he's interested in privacy."


The post has garnered over 25,000 re-tweets, and was followed up by a second tweet after the Prime Minister of Iceland resigned over his implication in the Panama Papers leak.
Sigmundur Davíð Gunnlaugsson stepped down from the government yesterday after being accused of setting up a company in the British Virgin Islands with the help of a law firm at the centre of controversy.
Reacting to the news, Snowden mused: "Resignation of Iceland's PM may explain why the UK PM is so insistent public has no right to know a PM's private' finances."


Snowden's sentiment was quickly echoed by others, including Carol Vordeman.
The former Countdown star' labelled Cameron a "hypocrite" and insisted the issue was "not a private matter".


Other pundits, including former English rugby hooker Brian Moore, the Guardian's Tom Clark and Kevin Maguire of the Mirror, were equally unimpressed.




In 2012, Cameron called out comedian Jimmy Carr for conducting "morally wrong" tax arrangements.
Reports of Carr's financial arrangements suggested "straightforward tax avoidance", the PM said at the time, adding that it was unfair on the people paying to watch him perform that he did not pay taxes in the same way they did.

Quote:

Corruption' as a Propaganda Weapon

April 4, 2016

Exclusive: Mainstream U.S. journalism and propaganda are getting hard to tell apart, as with the flurry of "corruption" stories aimed at Russia's Putin and other demonized foreign leaders, writes Robert Parry.
By Robert Parry
Sadly, some important duties of journalism, such as applying evenhanded standards on human rights abuses and financial corruption, have been so corrupted by the demands of government propaganda and the careerism of too many writers that I now become suspicious whenever the mainstream media trumpets some sensational story aimed at some "designated villain."
Far too often, this sort of "journalism" is just a forerunner to the next "regime change" scheme, dirtying up or delegitimizing a foreign leader before the inevitable advent of a "color revolution" organized by "democracy-promoting" NGOs often with money from the U.S. government's National Endowment for Democracy or some neoliberal financier like George Soros.

Russian President Vladimir Putin delivering a speech on the Ukraine crisis in Moscow on March 18, 2014. (Russian government photo)

We are now seeing what looks like a new preparatory phase for the next round of "regime changes" with corruption allegations aimed at former Brazilian President Luiz Ignacio Lula da Silva and Russian President Vladimir Putin. The new anti-Putin allegations ballyhooed by the UK Guardian and other outlets are particularly noteworthy because the so-called "Panama Papers" that supposedly implicate him in offshore financial dealings never mention his name.
Or as the Guardian writes: "Though the president's name does not appear in any of the records, the data reveals a pattern his friends have earned millions from deals that seemingly could not have been secured without his patronage. The documents suggest Putin's family has benefited from this money his friends' fortunes appear his to spend."
Note, if you will, the lack of specificity and the reliance on speculation: "a pattern"; "seemingly"; "suggest"; "appear." Indeed, if Putin were not already a demonized figure in the Western media, such phrasing would never pass an editor's computer screen. Indeed, the only point made in declarative phrasing is that "the president's name does not appear in any of the records."
A British media-watch publication, the Off-Guardian, which criticizes much of the work done at The Guardian, headlined its article on the Putin piece as "the Panama Papers cause Guardian to collapse into self-parody."
But whatever the truth about Putin's "corruption" or Lula's, the journalistic point is that the notion of objectivity has long since been cast aside in favor of what's useful as propaganda for Western interests.
Some of those Western interests now are worried about the growth of the BRICS economic system Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa as a competitor to the West's G-7 and the International Monetary Fund. After all, control of the global financial system has been central to American power in the post-World War II world and rivals to the West's monopoly are not welcome.
What the built-in bias against these and other "unfriendly" governments means, in practical terms, is that one standard applies to a Russia or a Brazil, while a more forgiving measure is applied to the corruption of a U.S. or European leader.
Take, for instance, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's millions of dollars in payments in speaking fees from wealthy special interests that knew she was a good bet to become the next U.S. president. [See Consortiumnews.com's "Clinton Stalls on Goldman-Sachs Speeches."]

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Or, similarly, the millions upon millions of dollars invested in super-PACS for Clinton, Sen. Ted Cruz and other presidential hopefuls. That might look like corruption from an objective standard but is treated as just a distasteful aspect of the U.S. political process.
But imagine for a minute if Putin had been paid millions of dollars for brief speeches before powerful corporations, banks and interest groups doing business with the Kremlin. That would be held up as de facto proof of his illicit greed and corruption.
Losing Perspective
Also, when it's a demonized foreign leader, any "corruption" will do, however minor. For example, in the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan's denounced Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega for his choice of eyewear: "The dictator in designer glasses," declared Reagan, even as Nancy Reagan was accepting free designer gowns and free renovations of the White House funded by oil and gas interests.
Or, the "corruption" for a demonized leader can be a modest luxury, such as Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych's "sauna" in his personal residence, a topic that got front-page treatment in The New York Times and other Western publications seeking to justify the violent coup that drove Yanukovych from office in February 2014.
Incidentally, both Ortega and Yanukovych had been popularly elected but were still targeted by the U.S. government and its operatives with violent destabilization campaigns. In the 1980s, the CIA-organized Nicaraguan Contra war killed some 30,000 people, while the U.S.-orchestrated "regime change" in Ukraine sparked a civil war that has left some 10,000 people dead. Of course, in both cases, Official Washington blamed Moscow for all the trouble.
In both cases, too, the politicians and operatives who gained power as a result of the conflicts were arguably more corrupt than the Nicaraguan Sandinistas or Yanukovych's government. The Nicaraguan Contras, whose violence helped pave the way for the 1990 election of U.S.-backed candidate Violeta Chamorro, were deeply implicated in cocaine trafficking. [See Consortiumnews.com's "The Sordid Contra-Cocaine Saga."]
Today, the U.S.-supported Ukrainian government is wallowing in corruption so deep that it has provoked a new political crisis.[See Consortiumnews'com's "Reality Peeks Through in Ukraine."]
Ironically, one of the politicians actually named in the Panama Papers for having established a shadowy offshore account is the U.S.-backed Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, although he got decidedly second-billing to the unnamed Putin. (Poroshenko denied there was anything improper in his offshore financial arrangements.)
Double Standards
Mainstream Western journalism no longer even tries to apply common standards to questions about corruption. If you're a favored government, there might be lamentations about the need for more "reform" which often means slashing pensions for the elderly and cutting social programs for the poor but if you're a demonized leader, then the only permissible answer is criminal indictment and/or "regime change."

Ukrainian Finance Minister Natalie Jaresko.

One stark example of these double standards is the see-no-evil attitude toward the corruption of Ukraine's Finance Minister Natalie Jaresko, who is touted endlessly in the Western media as the paragon of Ukrainian good governance and reform. The documented reality, however, is that Jaresko enriched herself through her control of a U.S.-taxpayer-financed investment fund that was supposed to help the people of Ukraine build their economy.
According to the terms of the $150 million investment fund created by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), Jaresko's compensation was supposed to be capped at $150,000 a year, a pay package that many Americans would envy. But it was not enough for Jaresko, who first simply exceeded the limit by hundreds of thousands of dollars and then moved her compensation off-books as she amassed total annual pay of $2 million or more.
The documentation of this scheming is clear. I have published multiple stories citing the evidence of both her excessive compensation and her legal strategies for covering up evidence of alleged wrongdoing. [See Consortiumnews.com's "How Ukraine's Finance Minister Got Rich" and "Carpetbagging Crony Capitalism in Ukraine."]
Despite the evidence, not a single mainstream Western news outlet has followed up on this information even as Jaresko is hailed as a "reform" candidate for Ukrainian prime minister.
This disinterest is similar to the blinders that The New York Times and other major Western newspapers put on when they were assessing whether Ukrainian President Yanukovych was ousted in a coup in February 2014 or just wandered off and forgot to return.
In a major "investigative" piece, the Times concluded there was no coup in Ukraine while ignoring the evidence of a coup, such as the intercepted phone call between U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland and U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt discussing who they would put into power. "Yats is the guy," said Nuland and surprise, surprise, Arseniy Yatsenyuk ended up as prime minister.
The Times also ignored the observation of George Friedman, president of the global intelligence firm Stratfor, who noted that the Ukraine coup was "the most blatant coup in history." [See Consortiumnews.com's "NYT Still Pretends No Coup in Ukraine."]
The Propaganda Weapon
The other advantage of "corruption" as a propaganda weapon to discredit certain leaders is that we all assume that there is plenty of corruption in governments as well as in the private sector all around the world. Alleging corruption is like shooting large fish crowded into a small barrel. Granted, some barrels might be more crowded than others but the real decision is whose barrel you choose.
That's part of the reason why the U.S. government has spread around hundreds of millions of dollars to finance "journalism" organizations, train political activists and support "non-governmental organizations" that promote U.S. policy goals inside targeted countries. For instance, before the Feb. 22, 2014 coup in Ukraine, there were scores of such operations in the country financed by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), whose budget from Congress exceeds $100 million a year.

Carl Gershman, president of the National Endowment for Democracy.

But NED, which has been run by neocon Carl Gershman since its founding in 1983, is only part of the picture. You have other propaganda fronts operating under the umbrella of the State Department and USAID. Last year, USAID issued a fact sheet summarizing its work financing friendly journalists around the globe, including "journalism education, media business development, capacity building for supportive institutions, and strengthening legal-regulatory environments for free media."
USAID estimated its budget for "media strengthening programs in over 30 countries" at $40 million annually, including aiding "independent media organizations and bloggers in over a dozen countries," In Ukraine before the coup, USAID offered training in "mobile phone and website security," which sounds a bit like an operation to thwart the local government's intelligence gathering, an ironic position for the U.S. with its surveillance obsession, including prosecuting whistleblowers based on evidence that they talked to journalists.
USAID, working with billionaire George Soros's Open Society, also funds the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project, which engages in "investigative journalism" that usually goes after governments that have fallen into disfavor with the United States and then are singled out for accusations of corruption. The USAID-funded OCCRP also collaborates with Bellingcat, an online investigative website founded by blogger Eliot Higgins.
Higgins has spread misinformation on the Internet, including discredited claims implicating the Syrian government in the sarin attack in 2013 and directing an Australian TV news crew to what looked to be the wrong location for a video of a BUK anti-aircraft battery as it supposedly made its getaway to Russia after the shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 in July 2014.
Despite his dubious record of accuracy, Higgins has gained mainstream acclaim, in part, because his "findings" always match up with the propaganda theme that the U.S. government and its Western allies are peddling. Though most genuinely independent bloggers are ignored by the mainstream media, Higgins has found his work touted by both The New York Times and The Washington Post.
In other words, the U.S. government has a robust strategy for deploying direct and indirect agents of influence. Indeed, during the first Cold War, the CIA and the old U.S. Information Agency refined the art of "information warfare," including pioneering some of its current features like having ostensibly "independent" entities and cut-outs present U.S. propaganda to a cynical public that would reject much of what it hears from government but may trust "citizen journalists" and "bloggers."
But the larger danger from this perversion of journalism is that it sets the stage for "regime changes" that destabilize whole countries, thwart real democracy (i.e., the will of the people), and engender civil warfare. Today's neoconservative dream of mounting a "regime change" in Moscow is particularly dangerous to the future of both Russia and the world.
Regardless of what you think about President Putin, he is a rational political leader whose legendary sangfroid makes him someone who is not prone to emotional decisions. His leadership style also appeals to the Russian people who overwhelmingly favor him, according to public opinion polls.
While the American neocons may fantasize that they can generate enough economic pain and political dissension inside Russia to achieve Putin's removal, their expectation that he will be followed by a pliable leader like the late President Boris Yeltsin, who will let U.S. operatives back in to resume plundering Russia's riches, is almost certainly a fantasy.
The far more likely possibility is that if a "regime change" could somehow be arranged Putin would be replaced by a hard-line nationalist who might think seriously about unleashing Russia's nuclear arsenal if the West again tries to defile Mother Russia. For me, it's not Putin who's the worry; it's the guy after Putin.
So, while legitimate questions about Putin's "corruption" or that of any other political leader should be pursued, the standards of evidence should not be lowered just because he or anyone else is a demonized figure in the West. There should be single not double standards.
Western media outrage about "corruption" should be expressed as loudly against political and business leaders in the U.S. or other G-7 countries as it is toward those in the BRICS.

David Guyatt Wrote:And also the fact that this confirms for me that this leak was designed by the US.

Magda Hassan Wrote:

David Guyatt Wrote:And also the fact that this confirms for me that this leak was designed by the US.

Yes indeed it does doesn't it? An approved state sanctioned leak. Nothing less.

Quote:Published On: Thu, Apr 7th, 2016
GeoPolitics / TheNewsDoctors Spotlight | By [B]Guest Post [/B]


[B][B]Panama Papers? Hybrid War, From Palmyra To Panama Pepe Escobar[/B][/B]

[B][B]TND Guest Contributor: Pepe Escobar |[/B][/B]
[B]The Panama Papers, stripped to the bone, may reveal themselves, as I have argued, essentially as an infowar operation initiated by the NSA which would conveniently target mostly Global South "enemies" (as in the BRICS nations) and selected, disposable, Western pawns.[/B]
[B]In its current stage, the Panama Papers have morphed into a weaponized psyops posing as an activist leak', straight from the Hybrid War playbook.[/B]
[B]The relentless, expert mainstream media exposure has been at pains to portray the massive leak as "responsible journalism", yet without addressing eyebrow-raising questions on how the leak really came about; how 2.6 terabytes of data, including 5 million emails, have been selective edited; how it was obtained without encription; how there was not a single leak while the whole hoard was being sorted out by 400 or so reporters for over a year; and how the information is being selectively released.[/B]
[B]"Responsible journalism" gatekeepers are spinning this came from a digital musketeer; a whistleblower. Not necessarily. The leak has already sparked a credibility war between WikiLeaks and the new mainstream leakers, the heavily compromised, Washington-based, US foundations-funded ICIJ.[/B]
[B]The NSA thesis is sustained by the fact the NSA specializes in breaking into virtually any database and/or archive anywhere, stealing "secrets" and then selectively destroying/blackmailing/protecting assets and "enemies" according to US government interests. Add to it that Ramon Fonseca, founding partner of Mossack Fonseca, is stressing, "We rule out an inside job. This is not a leak. This is a hack."[/B]
[B][B]Countering "strategic threats"[/B][/B]
[B]The Panama Papers function as much as a precision strike as a "message" for an array of players to toe the line or else; after all, the leak/hack unveils a web of connections to several dozen companies, individuals and politicians across the Global South who are kind of superstars or aspiring superstars in US sanctions blacklists.[/B]
[B]The obsessive mainstream media focus on the enemies and/or "strategic threats" to Exceptionalistan also raise eyebrows; here's how the Beijing leadership is expertly dissecting it.[/B]
[B]The Panama Papers also happen to perfectly fit into a massive US trade deal offensive. You can read it as a reminder of the TPP-TTIP corporate power grab; if you don't join our play for US-controlled One World trade, we've got dirt on you.[/B]
[B]It's naturally healthy to be offered at least a glimpse of the nasty undercurrents of turbocharged casino capitalism, a.k.a. "global financial system", where major banks and an army of financial sharks allow "secret" companies to park illicit and/or corrupt funds.[/B]
[B]In parallel, it's enlightening to observe how all electronic money transactions are now totally traceable. The Panama Papers happen to come to light only a few months before an obscure global information-sharing treaty will be implemented. Whether global financial sharks will be able to circumvent it is an open question. Crucially; Panama is not part of the signatories.[/B]
[B]On the crucial financial shark angle, over half of the companies listed in the massive leak/hack are registered in the UK or "Crown dependencies". Savor the sweet smell of revenge by US corporate media denouncing what it practically amounts to the British Tax Evasion Empire.[/B]
[B]Everyone knows the City of London largely operates as a world-class money laundering racket. Yet forget about British "responsible journalism" gatekeepers getting into the heart of it. It's much more popular to blame Putin as guilty by association than to examine how David Cameron's father, Ian, chose to keep the family money (and the future Prime Minister's inheritance) away from the tax man.[/B]
[B]Or how the President of that NATO-friendly failed entity, Petro Poroshenko, stashes his wealth not in unruly Ukraine but "protected" in the Virgin Islands. And forget about investigating the former bureau chief of former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, Dov Weisglass, who, like Cameron's father and Poroshenko, is actually named in the Panama Papers.[/B]
[B]Moreover, don't except a Cayman Papers or a Virgin Island Papers the real deal anytime soon. The real elite would never let it happen.[/B]
[B][B]Panama Redacted [/B][/B]
[B]And then there's the ultimate Exceptionalistan angle. Even Bloomberg, three months ago, had formally announced to global public opinion that the top tax haven in the world is now the US complete with notorious tax haven service provider Rothschild-in-Reno. Unlike Panama, whatever happens in Reno stays in Reno and we're not talking wild lap-dancing nights deep in the Nevada desert.[/B]
[B]Add to it a juicy deep state-connected source's take on the "only 441 Americans" (all of them still mysterious) named in the leak/hack; "The Nevada office of Mossack Fonseca received advance information via the NSA to alert Panama to delete all the records in Nevada. The NSA is a political control mechanism. They have nothing to do with terrorism, and would have no idea where to look unless guided by Operation Gladio-style insiders."[/B]
[B]The US government's war on fiscal paradises is, predictably, also selective. Switzerland has been a key target. Now Panama. Considering the NSA thesis, it's clear key American billionaires as well as key American corporations would have all been redacted out of the leak/hack.[/B]
[B]The gold standard for the Panama Papers not to be regarded as a limited hangout cum psyops will be, for instance, whether HSBC, Coutts (a subsidiary of RBS) and UBS all deeply connected with Mossack Fonseca will be fully investigated. Whether oil trader Vitol, linked to Panama Paper-exposed Azerbaijan's ruler Ilham Aliyev, will be investigated. Whether Poroshenko will be investigated. Whether the nasty connections between Big Oil and Western Big Banking will be unveiled.[/B]
[B]And of course after the Panama Papers assorted dodgy weapons dealers, drug barons, corrupt oligarchs and certified tax cheats may continue to be lavishly rewarded, undisturbed as long as they know how to play the turbocharged casino capitalist game.[/B]
[B][B]Why now?[/B][/B]
[B]The Panama Papers are all about timing. Why now? After all, this massive hoard had been sitting under full scrutiny in total secrecy for over a year.[/B]
[B]The Panama Papers totally fit into Hybrid War. As with the Car Wash investigation in Brazil which is a spin-off of the NSA spying on Petrobras the Panama Papers may be regarded as a Monster Truck Wash, with the target being the Global South, and the BRICS in particular.[/B]
[B]It's not by accident that immediately after the leak/hack came to light, Pentagon supremo Ash Carter, speaking at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington a neighbor to the ICIJ insisted once again the Pentagon needed to be more "agile" to fight the US's five strategic challenges, which he named, in that order, as "Russia, China, North Korea, Iran and terrorism."[/B]
[B]Note the "threat" predominance of Russia, China and Iran the key nodes of Eurasia integration, and all of them heavily featured on the Panama Papers, mostly in guilt by association mode.[/B]
[B]The timing of the release of the leak/hack certainly has to do with Palmyra. The recent liberation of Palmyra for 3,000 years the door to Southwest Asia for those who come from the West and the door towards the Mediterranean for those who come from the East was a brilliantly executed geo-strategic plan that left many a Pentagon mouth agape.[/B]
[B]Daesh had turned Palmyra into a key base for an all-out attack on Damascus controlling the only road leading to the capital.[/B]
[B]So only a meticulously coordinated counter-offensive up to 20,000 men, from the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) to local militias, Hezbollah special forces, Iranian pasdaran (including many Iranian-trained Afghans) and Russian Spetsnaz would be able to pull it off.[/B]
[B]Syrian generals have been adamant to stress that Europe, "invaded" by the refugees "liberated" by Turkey's Sultan Erdogan, preferred all along to support those inexistent "moderate rebels"- a Beltway fiction weaponized by Turkey and Saudi Arabia. Now Europeans have to face blowback in European soil.[/B]
[B]The SAA, meanwhile, defended Damascus, a unified and secular Syria and SAA generals proudly stress Europe itself. Their work won't stop in Palmyra. The next objectives, for the next few months, are Deir ez-Zour, then the final assault on the fake "Caliphate" capital, Raqqa.[/B]
[B]So which role Exceptionalistan the land of the "war on terra" played in this epic endeavor?[/B]
[B]None. It's not an accident that terrorism features last in the Pentagon's list of "strategic threats". It's more like fiction unveiling reality, as in the last scene of the current season of House of Cards: "We make the terror".[/B]
[B]In the case of Daesh, Washington did "make the terror", as in made the terror happen; the flourishing of the fake "Caliphate" was a[/B]
[B]willful US government decision. And now Russia has blown up or good for all the world to see the US government's fictional narcissistic self-portrait of undisputed champion of the "war on terra".[/B]
[B]Ouch. That hurts. Cue to that by now famous visit by US Secretary of State John Kerry to Moscow, two weeks ago, to talk to President Putin.[/B]
[B]It may have been part of a "grand bargain" in Syria (no, there were no leaks over what they really discussed). And it may have been a tactical retreat, as Kerry acknowledged Russia "won" in Syria, but NATO as in the Pentagon will keep up the pressure in Russia's western borderlands. Hybrid War resumed shortly afterwards, via the Panama Papers.[/B]
[B][B]We Rule One World[/B][/B]
[B]A fake "Caliphate" will never be a strategic threat to Exceptionalistan; but Eurasian integration definitely is.[/B]
[B]No wonder the Beltway is alarmed. Syria has already yielded two key developments.[/B]
[B]1) the high-level coordination between Moscow, Damascus, Tehran and Baghdad via the Baghdad joint information center was the antechamber of how the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), in the future, may intervene in a hot spot as the absolute opposite of NATO: eradicating chaos instead of fomenting it via humanitarian imperialism.[/B]
[B]2) This was also an antechamber, in terms of interstate cooperation, of how the New Silk Roads may proceed across Eurasia, further integrating China and Russia with Central Asia and Southwest Asia.[/B]
[B]As for the Beltway, the priorities remain the same. First of all, prevent[/B]
[B]Russia and the EU from establishing a bilateral, strategic, trade/commerce partnership that adds to Eurasia integration. Hardcore Hybrid War in Ukraine remains the key spanner in the works, as well as NATO beefing up its "patrols" based in Eastern Europe vassal states.[/B]
[B]The key overall objective is to prevent Eurasian integration by all means available. As for Wall Street, what matters is to build a One World flow of American capital to the benefit of a turbocharged casino capitalist system controlled by the US and not Eurasia. Compared to the Big Picture, Panama may eventually yield the odd road kill. Not enough. Be prepared for the long haul. For the gas-guzzling Hybrid War Monster Truck, the road goes on forever.[/B]

David Guyatt Wrote:Just how did Pepe get a picture of that brown envelope Tooth and I have been exchanging? Bloody check!

Magda Hassan Wrote:

David Guyatt Wrote:Just how did Pepe get a picture of that brown envelope Tooth and I have been exchanging? Bloody cheek!

I'd be checking out the bona fides of Tooth if I were you David....