In the 21st century the two hundred year-old propaganda that the American people control their government has been completely shattered. Both the Bush and Obama regimes have made it unmistakenly clear that the American people don't even influence, much less control, the government. As far as Washington is concerned, the people are nothing but chaff in the wind.
Polls demonstrate that 65% of the US population opposes US intervention in Syria. Despite this clear indication of the people's will, the Obama regime is ramping up a propaganda case for more arming of Washington's mercenaries sent to overthrow the secular Syrian government and for a "no-fly zone" over Syria, which, if Libya is the example, means US or NATO aircraft attacking the Syrian army on the ground, thus serving as the air force of Washington's imported mercenaries, euphemistically called "the Syrian rebels."
Washington declared some time ago that the "red line" that would bring Syria under Washington's military attack was the Assad government's use of chemical weapons of mass destruction against Washington's mercenaries. Once this announcement was made, everyone with a brain immediately knew that Washington would fabricate false intelligence that Assad had used chemical weapons, just as Washington presented to the United Nations the intentional lie via Secretary of State Colin Powell that Saddam Hussein in Iraq had dangerous weapons of mass destruction.
Remember National Security Advisor Condi Rice's image of a "mushroom cloud over American cities?" Propagandistic lies were Washington's orders of the day.
And they still are. Now Washington has fabricated the false intelligence, and president obama has announced it with a straight face, that Syria's Assad has used sarin gas on several occasions and that between 100 and 150 "of his own people," a euphemism for the US supplied foreign mercenaries, have been killed by the weapon of mass destruction.
Think about that for a minute. As unfortunate as is any death from war, is 100-150 deaths "mass destruction?" According to low-ball estimates, the US-sponsored foreign mercenary invasion of Syria has cost 93,000 lives, of which 150 deaths amounts to0.0016%. If we round up, Washington's 150 deaths comes to two-thousands of one percent.
In other words, 99.998% of the deaths did not cross the "red line." But the 0.002 (rounded up) percent did.
Yes, I know. Washington's position makes no sense. But when has it ever made any sense?
Let's stretch our minds just a tiny bit farther. Assad knows about Washington's "red line." It has been repeated over and over in order to create in the minds of the distracted American public that there is a real, valid reason for attacking Syria. Why would Assad use the proscribed weapons of mass destruction in order to kill a measly 100-150 mercenaries when his army is mopping up the US mercenaries without the use of gas and when Assad knows that the use of gas brings in the US military against him?
As the Russian government made clear, Washington's accusation is not believable. No informed person could possibly believe it. No doubt, many Americans wearing patriotism on their sleeves will fall for Washington's latest lie, but no one else in the world will. Even Washington's NATO puppets calling for attacking Syria know that the justification for the attack is a lie. For the NATO puppets, Washington's money overwhelms integrity, for which the rewards are low.
The Russians certainly know that Washington is lying. The Russian Foreign Minister Larov said:
"The [Assad] government, as the opposition is saying openly, is enjoying military success on the ground. The [Assad] regime isn't driven to the wall. What sense is there for the regime to use chemical armsespecially in such small amounts."
Larov is a relatively civilized person in the role of Russia's main diplomat. However, other Russian officials can be more pointed in their dismissal of Washington's latest blatant lies. Yury Ushakov, an aide to Russian President Putin said: "The Americans tried to present us with information on the use of chemical weapons by the [Assad] regime, but frankly we thought that it was not convincing. We wouldn't like to invoke references to [the infamous lies o] Secretary of State Powell [at the UN alleging Iraqi WMD], but the facts don't look convincing in our eyes." Aleksey Pushkov, the chairman of the Russian Duma's Foreign Affairs Committee, cut to the chase.
"The data about Assad's use of chemical weapons is fabricated by the same facility that made up the lies about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. Obama is walking George W. Bush's path."
Here in America no one will ever hear straight talk like this from the US presstitutes.
Orwellian double-speak is now the language of the United States government. Secretary of State john kerry condemned Assad for harming "peace talks" while the US arms its Syrian mercenaries.
Washington's double-speak is now obvious to the world. Not only Assad, but also the Russians, Chinese, Iranians, and every US puppet state which includes all of NATO and Japan, are fully aware that Washington is again lying through its teeth. The Russians, Chinese, and Iranians are trying to avoid confrontation with Washington, as war with the modern nuclear weapons would destroy all life on planet earth. What is striking is that despite 24/7 brainwashing by the presstitutes, a large majority of the American population opposes obama's war on Syria.
This is good news. It means more Americans are developing the ability to think independently of the lies Washington feeds to them.
What the neocon nazis, the bush/obama regime, and the presstitute media have made clear is that Washington is going to push its agenda of world hegemony to the point of starting World War III, which, of course, means the end of life on earth.
Russia and China, either one of which can destroy the United States, have learned that the US government is a liar and cannot be trusted. The Libyan "no-fly" policy to which Russia and China agreed turned out to be a NATO air attack on the Libyan army so that the CIA-sponsored mercenaries could prevail.
Russia and China, having learned their lesson, are protesting Washington's assault on Syria that Washington pretends is a "civil war." If Syria falls, Russia and China know that Iran is next.
Iran is Russia's underbelly, and for China Iran is 20% of its energy imports. Both Russian and Chinese governments know that after Iran falls, they are next. There is no other explanation for Washington surrounding Russia with missile bases and surrounding China with naval and air bases.
Both Russia and China are now preparing for the war that they see as inevitable. Washington's crazed, demented drive for world hegemony is bringing unsuspecting Americans up against two countries with hydrogen bombs whose combined population is five times the US population. In such a conflict everyone dies.
Considering the utterly insane government ruling in Washington, if human life exists in 2020, it will be a miracle. All the worry about future Medicare and Social Security deficits is meaningless. There will be no one here to collect the benefits.
Has anyone seen eny evidence of Sarin gas poisoning, or any other WMD attaacks?
Sarin gas is an anti-cholinergic substance which prevents the normal breakdown of a substance, acetylcholine, normally released from nerves acting on muscles of the body. Sarin destroys cholinesterase, the enzyme involved in the breakdown of acetylcholine, a normal function. Victims generally die of asphyxiation because they cannot breathe. Fresh corpses could be cyanotic.
I have seen no official photographs or any other evidence of the use of sarin. It is possible that sarin has been used by some terrorists groups in Syria as false evidence. Such groupps are certainly not on the side of the Syrian people at all.
The US appears to be repeating its past mistakes, and this move by President Obama will be disasterour for the US (and the rest of the world).
Short of irrefutable evidence to the contrary, I read it as simply another fear-mongering case of manufactured Iraqi WMD fabricated to achieve a strategic end that is in danger of going belly up.
I also very strongly suspect that Putin may ultimately sell Assad down the line for reasons I have cited earlier. I don't see a nuclear holocaust manifesting out of this, although I can see reasons why this sort of story might be hyped at the moment.
But I could easily be misinterpreting things.
Isn't that so, Mickey?
[ATTACH=CONFIG]4875[/ATTACH]
The shadow is a moral problem that challenges the whole ego-personality, for no one can become conscious of the shadow without considerable moral effort. To become conscious of it involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as present and real. This act is the essential condition for any kind of self-knowledge.
ByJeffrey GoldbergJun 19, 2013 5:40 AM ET
Twenty years ago, in a debate overthe war in Bosnia, Madeleine Albright, then the U.S. ambassadorto the United Nations, issued a challenge to the chairman of theJoint Chiefs of Staff, General Colin Powell. Albright wanted theU.S. to confront an aggressive Serbia; Powell and the Pentagonwere hesitant. Albright grew frustrated: "What's the point ofhaving this superb military that you're always talking about ifwe can't use it?" Albright asked. Powell later said that hethought Albright was going to give him an aneurysm.
Flash-forward to this past Wednesday. At a principalsmeeting in the White House situation room, Secretary of StateJohn Kerry began arguing, vociferously, for immediate U.S.airstrikes against airfields under the control of Bashar al-Assad's Syrian regime -- specifically, those fields it has usedto launch chemical weapons raids against rebel forces.
At this point that the current chairman of the JointChiefs of Staff, the usually mild-mannered Army General Martin Dempsey, spoke up, loudly. According to several sources, Dempseythrew a series of brushback pitches at Kerry, demanding to knowjust exactly what the post-strike plan would be and pointing outthat the State Department didn't fully grasp the complexity ofsuch an operation.
Dempsey informed Kerry that the Air Force could not simplydrop a few bombs, or fire a few missiles, at targets insideSyria: To be safe, the U.S. would have to neutralize Syria'sintegrated air-defense system, an operation that would require700 or more sorties. At a time when the U.S. military isexhausted, and when sequestration is ripping into the Pentagonbudget, Dempsey is said to have argued that a demand by theState Department for precipitous military action in a murkycivil war wasn't welcome.
Military Wariness
Officials with knowledge of the meeting say that Kerry gaveas good as he got, and that the discussion didn't reachaneurysm-producing levels. But it was, in diplomatic parlance, afull and frank vetting of the profound differences between Stateand Defense on Syria. Dempsey was adamant: Without much of anentrance strategy, without anything resembling an exit strategy,and without even a clear-eyed understanding of the consequencesof an American airstrike, the Pentagon would be extremelyreluctant to get behind Kerry's plan.
As we know now, the Pentagon's position is in sync with President Barack Obama's. The outcome of the meeting last weekwas to formalize a decision made weeks ago to supply the moremoderate elements of the Syrian opposition with small arms andammunition. The assessment by U.S. intelligence agencies thatAssad had used chemical weapons against small pockets of rebels-- confirming those made several months earlier by theintelligence agencies of U.S. friends in Europe and the MiddleEast -- forced the administration to make a gesture of supportfor the opposition.
Members of the White House national security team, who tendto be more hawkish than Obama or Dempsey (though not as quite asmilitant as Kerry), had been arguing that, in the words of Tony Blinken, the deputy national security adviser, "superpowers don't bluff." Once Obama had drawn a red linearound chemical weapons, the White House had no choice but totake some sort of action.
Blinken was clever to use the word "bluff" in hisarguments to the president, implicitly linking his posture onSyria to his position on Iran's nuclear program. Last year, inan interview with me on the subject of Iran, Obama said, "Aspresident of the United States, I don't bluff." On Iran, he haslived up to his words, but he was in danger -- and remains indanger -- of being seen as a bluffer on Syria.
No Bluffing
What is so odd about Dempsey's adamant opposition toKerry's aggressive proposals is that it hasn't previously beenmade public. Obama told Charlie Rose this week that he isworried about sliding down the slippery slope toward greaterintervention in Syria. Having Dempsey openly in his corner wouldbe useful to him, but the administration hasn't made hay overthe Pentagon's opposition to airstrikes. (When I asked thePentagon for official comment, Dempsey's spokesman would onlysay that he would not "discuss classified internaldeliberations," though he went on to say that the NationalSecurity Council principals "routinely debate a wide range ofoptions to include how the military can and should support acomprehensive, regional approach to this conflict.")
One senior administration official explained it this way:The White House doesn't want Dempsey to make an enthusiasticcase on "Meet the Press" against intervention, just in caseObama one day decides to follow Kerry's advice and get moredeeply involved. At that point, Dempsey's arguments againstgreater involvement could come back to haunt the administration.
The decision to provide small arms to the Syrian oppositionhas made no one happy -- not the rebels, who understand thatthese quite-possibly ineffective weapons will take many monthsto reach them; not Kerry, who, while arguing that theseshipments may become a "force multiplier" in the conflict,thinks that only a show of American air power will convinceAssad and his Hezbollah allies that the U.S. is making a seriousattempt to level a playing field that has been tilting their wayfor some time; and not the Pentagon, which thinks that Obama,despite saying that he is wary of the slippery slope, might bepushed down that slope anyway, by interventionists on his teamor by events on the ground.
It is possible, even for those of us who have been inclinedtoward intervention, to have a great deal of sympathy forDempsey's position. There are those in the Pentagon who thinkthat the State Department has romanticized the Syrianopposition. What diplomats see as a civil war featuring bands ofpoorly armed moderates struggling to free themselves from thegrip of an evil dictator, the generals see as a religious warbetween Hezbollah and al-Qaeda. Why would the U.S. risk takingsides in a battle between two loathed terror organizations?Memories of Iraq, too, are fresh in the minds of Dempsey and hiscolleagues.
On the other hand, a Kerry partisan told me, U.S.intervention in Syria would not necessarily have to look likeU.S. intervention in Iraq. When I mentioned the Albright-Powellexchange of 20 years ago, he pointed out something obviousresident Bill Clinton eventually decided to use air power inthe Balkans. And it brought the Serbian government to its knees.
(Jeffrey Goldberg is a Bloomberg View columnist.) http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-18...-plan.html
"The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it." Karl Marx
"He would, wouldn't he?" Mandy Rice-Davies. When asked in court whether she knew that Lord Astor had denied having sex with her.
“I think it would be a good idea” Ghandi, when asked about Western Civilisation.
This essay examines the connections between the foreign intervention crisis in Syria, the vast NSA surveillance program that has recently been exposed, and the sequence of events that begin with NSA program changes in February, 2001 six months before 9/11. The connections are illuminating.
In mid June 2013 the Obama administration announced that it will start arming insurgents against the Syrian government because the regime crossed a "red line" by using chemical weapons which it estimates have killed, over time, an estimated 100-150 rebels.[/url][1]
It is illuminating to watch the 5-minute interview Assad gave the Sunday Times, March 3, 2013, saying that as long as Britain arms the insurgents to save Syria from its repressive dictator, "the arsonist cannot be seen as the firefighter."
In another recent German TV interview, Assad (whom we know is a medical doctor) discusses the alleged and contradictory use of chemical weapons defined as "weapons of mass destruction" in local ground combat. He goes on to describe external financial support to the insurgents as "stoking the fire."[4]
Indeed, Aron Lund, a Swedish observer of the Syrian opposition, has listed about a dozen rebel groups, the largest of which are funded by either the West, the Gulf states, or Turkey. The 80,000-strong Free Syrian Army (also known as the Supreme Military Council), "was created in December 2012 after pressure from Western and Gulf Arab nations, which seek to make it the military wing of Syria's civilian exile group, the National Coalition."[5]
To understand why the Western media, under heavy influence from the Pentagon, has demonized Mr. Assad as a vicious and indiscriminate murderer[6] of his own subjects, we can turn to a 2006 interview of General Wesley Clark, a Rhodes scholar and the Supreme Allied Commander (Europe) of NATO, 1997-2000.
Speaking on March 2, 2007 to Amy Goodman of Democracy Now, Clark said that about ten days after 9/11 he visited his former staff in the Pentagon. They told him, in astonished tones, that the US was going to go to war with Iraq which they said had no demonstrated connection to 9/11, and they were at a complete loss to explain why.[7]
A few weeks later Clark went back to the Pentagon and was told that the US was going to "take out" seven Middle East countries in the next five years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran. He added, "Had there been no oil there it would be like Africa. Nobody is threatening to intervene in Africa."[8]
This early agenda for "take out," said by Clark to have been in place immediately after 9/11, raises questions about the anthrax attacks, which started September 18, 2001.
The letters containing the lethal spores targeted, among others, Democratic Senators Tom Daschle (Senate Majority Leader) and Patrick Leahy. During this period of intense panic in Washington the 342-page Patriot Act was rushed through Congress October 24 and passed the Senate the next day.[9]
It has since been amply demonstrated that the highly weaponized spores contained in the anthrax letters originated from within a US military laboratory, and were too sophisticated to have been produced by a non-state laboratory or by an individual.[10]
Now if we look at the origins of the NSA super-surveillance program, which is generally believed to have begun right after 9/11 as a provision of the Patriot Act, we will see that in fact it began in February, 2001, within weeks after the swearing in of the Bush administration.
Mr. William Binney, a 40-year veteran of the NSA, explains that all communications companies were required at that time to collect data on their customers. One company, Qwest Communications, refused to do this, and its CEO, Joe Nacchio, is still in prison on false charges of insider trading.[11]
Mr. Binney emphasized that virtually no one in the country was exempt. Even judges were recorded, so that almost everyone in the United States could potentially be coerced, using selected personal data as leverage.[12] The implications are staggering. How many elected and bureaucratic officials could be or have already been brought to heel in this manner?
Thus by 9/11 the "deep state" was already armed against its population in a manner that Binney referred to as "J. Edgar Hoover on super steroids."[13]
Meanwhile, the mainstream media have increasingly accepted the US position that Middle East countries plagued by civil wars caused by repressive dictators must be saved by humanitarian intervention from enlightened Western democracies.
Indeed Reuters correspondent Mark Hosenball reported last August that "President Barack Obama has signed a secret order authorizing U.S. support for rebels seeking to depose Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his government."[14]
The Reuters article continued:
"Recent news reports from the region have suggested that the influence and numbers of Islamist militants, some of them connected to al Qaeda or its affiliates, have been growing among Assad's opponents."[15]
On June 17, 2013, CNN supported the al Qaeda connection:
"Al Qaeda's affiliate inside Syria is now the best-equipped arm of the terror group in existence today, according to informal assessments by U.S. and Middle East intelligence agencies, a private sector analyst directly familiar with the information told CNN."[16]
In May, 2013, former FBI translator and whistle-blower[17] Sibel Edmonds had reported that "Bin Laden and his number 2 Al Qaeda lieutenant Ayman al-Zawahiri worked with the U.S. government for 3 months after 9/11 to coordinate destablization in the Caucus region."[18]
In light of the evidence above connecting al Qaeda to the U.S. government, it is imperative to go back to 9/11 the trigger event for the global war on terror and take a second look.
In fact this is being done.
A new source of evidence-based research is being developed by the academic 24-member 9/11 Consensus Panel,[19] which has developed 32 Consensus Points examining the official claims about how events unfolded that day. The Panel uses a standard medical model to evaluate its evidence, which is intended to provide confidence to the media and the public in reconsidering the events of 9/11.
The enormous cost in lives and dollars of the Middle East wars, coupled with the pervasive spying of domestic citizens now in progress, should prompt all those interested in democracy to look carefully at this evidence.
And regarding Syria at this moment, why is it the responsibility of the United States to intervene in the civil war of a sovereign country?
If humanitarian intervention is indeed desired, why is it not a peace-keeping initiative arranged by the United Nations? Notes
[1]"Text: US Statement on Syria Chemical Weapons," ABC News, June 14, 2013 (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory...b9-PJzm-HQ ). To put the priority of this "red line" in perspective, note that 443,000 preventable deaths are caused each year in the USA by smoking, "Tobacco Use: Targeting the Nation's Leading Killer at a Glance, 2011," Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (http://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/resour...ag/osh.htm).
[5]"Freedom Fighters? Cannibals? The Truth about Syria's Rebels, The Independent, June 17, 2013 ( http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/...62618.html.) "Mr. Lund is a regular contributor to the Swedish Institute for International Affairs. He is considered one of the best informed observers of the Syrian opposition." [6]Google Images shows that so far the West has not managed to capture an angry or unpleasant photograph of Mr. Assad. He is consistently mild and patient. [7]"General Wesley Clark: Wars Were Planned Seven Countries In Five Years" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_Sw). [8] Ibid. [9] The Patriot Act is downloadable at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107pub...publ56.pdf. [10] Edward Jay Epstein, "The Anthrax Attacks Remain Unsolved," The Wall Street Journal, January 24, 2010 (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424...15284.html). [11] William Binney interview: "Inside the NSA's Domestic Surveillance Apparatus: Whistleblower William Binney Speaks Out," Democracy Now, June 10, 2013 (http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2013/6/...speaks_out), and Dave Hodges, "Before Edward Snowden, There Was Joseph Nacchio," The Common Sense Show, June 13, 2013 (http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2013/0...h-nacchio/). [12] Binnie, Ibid. [13] Ibid. [14] "Exclusive: Obama authorizes secret U.S. support for Syrian rebels," Reuters, August 1, 2012 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/0...OK20120801). [15] Ibid. [16] Barbara Starr, "Analyst: Al Qaeda Affiliate in Syria now Best-Equipped of the Group," CNN, June 17, 2013 (http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2013/06/17...the-group/ ). [17] Edmonds' credibility was confirmed in a 2002 coalition letter to the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform (http://web.archive.org/web/2007103108502...ies-by-the ). [18] "Report: U.S. Government and NATO Worked with Bin Laden and His Top Lieutenant 3 Months AFTER 9/11," Washington's Blog, May 2, 2013 (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/05/r...r-911.html).
[url=mailbox:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Administrator/Application%20Data/Thunderbird/Profiles/7gx6vgsz.default/Mail/pop3.exemail.com-2.au/Inbox?number=97886741#_ednref19][19] See: http://www.consensus911.org. Note the Panel's methodology, voting members, and honorary members.
"The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it." Karl Marx
"He would, wouldn't he?" Mandy Rice-Davies. When asked in court whether she knew that Lord Astor had denied having sex with her.
“I think it would be a good idea” Ghandi, when asked about Western Civilisation.
Yes, you are right. I tried to respond to this the other night but I was working on a painfully slow computer and I lost my reply in limbo some where.
So I found a guy called Syrian Commando who I trust a whole lot more than the Daily Mail. He said it was a fake email but the rest of the leak is genuine. Which of course leads to a whole other lever of 'Why would they do that and who benefits?" I also spoke with some trusted local Syrians and their friends who agree with Syrian Commando's take on it. Plus one of our lovely members mentioned it in a post in this thread earlier but I was unable to follow it up at the time and since forgot about it.
[URL="http://syriancommando.wordpress.com/2013/01/29/britam-trap/"]http://syriancommando.wordpress.com/2013/01/29/britam-trap/
[/URL]http://syriancommando.wordpress.com/2013...confirmed/
David Guyatt Wrote:
Magda Hassan Wrote:
Phil
We've got a new offer. It's about Syria again. Qataris propose an attractive deal and swear that the idea is approved by Washington.
We'll have to deliver a CW to Homs, a Soviet origin g-shell from Libya similar to those that Assad should have.
They want us to deploy our Ukrainian personnel that should speak Russian and make a video record.
Frankly, I don't think it's a good idea but the sums proposed are enormous. Your opinion?
Kind regards
David
Blimey, that's a wee bit embarrassing for Britam.
I note that the Daily Mail says this about the email.
Quote:Britam Defence, David Goulding and Philip Doughty
PUBLISHED: 18:59, 18 April 2013 | UPDATED: 18:59, 18 April 2013
An article on 29 January reported allegations on the internet that the US Government had backed a plot to launch a chemicals weapons attack in Syria and blame it on the Assad regime.
The reports made reference to an email said to have been from David Goulding, the Business Development Director of Britam Defence, to company founder, Philip Doughty. The email had been published on the internet after Britam's computer system was illegally hacked in Singapore. It referred to a proposal that Britam would deliver chemical weapons to Syria for enormous financial reward and suggested that the directors were willing to consider the illegal proposal.
We now accept that email was fabricated and acknowledge there is no truth in any suggestion that Britam or its directors were willing to consider taking part in such a plot, which may have led to an atrocity.
We apologise to each of them and have agreed to pay substantial damages.
Not that this retraction can necessarily trusted to be be the full and complete truth, when we consider the current way the press operate, as well as the massive significance of Uncle's plans about The Taking of Syria 123.
I did try to find the original leaked text file on the linked website but failed. This is just as likely to my myopia, rather than it not being there, though.
"The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it." Karl Marx
"He would, wouldn't he?" Mandy Rice-Davies. When asked in court whether she knew that Lord Astor had denied having sex with her.
“I think it would be a good idea” Ghandi, when asked about Western Civilisation.
I've taken this opportunity to copy and paste the essay from the first link below, because internet stories often seem to go missing at some later date:
A few days ago a suspicious email and archive popped up by a hacker going by the handle "JAsIrX". On twitter I relayed the alarming contents immediately as the archive of confidential looked comprehensive and accurate. I write this to tell you, I may have made a terrible error, as did the Trojans so long ago when presented with temptation…
The email itself had a valid header and experts analysed it, showing that it proved internal exchange within BritAm's network.
A large amount of detailed documents, fill with private details and other information.
For those unaware, here is the content of the email included in the archive:
"Phil We've got a new offer. It's about Syria again. Qataris propose an attractive deal and swear that the idea is approved by Washington. We'll have to deliver a CW to Homs, a Soviet origin g-shell from Libya similar to those that Assad should have. They want us to deploy our Ukrainian personnel that should speak Russian and make a video record. Frankly, I don't think it's a good idea but the sums proposed are enormous. Your opinion? Kind regards David"
When you put it all together, it seems like a closed case. A strong conspiracy is revealed with a British private military company (PMC) being contracted out by Qatar to create a chemical weapon (CW) false flag, around December when Obama was busy harping on about the very topic…
BritAm PMC Logo … Nothing more than mercenaries with a fancy name.
At least, on the surface! The hack definitely happened as BritAm's website went down. Files were definitely leaked, no company would purposely leak out its employee's passports and other personal information. But let us ask some important questions:
a) Why did only one email get leaked?
Of the entire 200 megabyte archive, only one email is leaked out, directed to the company's manager. Usually with large leaks, a more complete archive of emails is leaked from the target's database. Why did the hacker choose only to leak this particular email? How they he sift it out of the rest? Which leads to the second question.
b) Why BritAm?
The hacker claimed that they found the data on a Malaysian based server that had faulty intrusion detection software. Isn't it odd that they would be looking around there in the first place and be motivated to target this company. Could it be chance? Of course. But more likely it was a well researched "leak", much like the Stratfor attack that was conducted by the FBI (since AnonymouSabu was working as an agent of theirs at the time he helped hack it) timed in response to its realistic articles about Syria… and this again leads to the penultimate, but very important question.
c) Why now?
If you can entertain for a minute that this hack was indeed well-planned and not accidental as the hacker claimed, you would ask then, why would they release it now? If it was unplanned, they would have no reason to delay its release. In fact, there is a very good reason:
Syrian Electronic Army Leaks website
The Syrian Electronic Army (SEA) has recently released a large amount of emails directly from Qatar's email servers. Earlier the SEA hacked into the Saudi defense ministry's servers and was able to completely transfer the database and access the content management system. The leaks so far are damning and have been confirmed by the Al Akhbar Lebanese newspaper as being "genuine". The media, has mostly ignored this massive leak, including alternate media, who would normally be swarming around any mention of a "leak"… Instead, some very odd things have been happening.
Suddenly, a few days after the announcement and release of the hack, Anonymous has decided to launch a "warhead" campaign, complete with a slick media campaign and loud promises… a clear attempt to OVERSHADOW the massive and real SEA leaks. This "chemical weapon" loud horn is sounded by the leak, gathering much more attention than minutes between gulf leaders (puppet Arabs of America). Putting these together, we can ask one final and simple question.
d) What is the purpose of this leak?
Why the leak, with a single email? Why now? Why only one email? It's clear. A single email is very easy to dismiss as fake. In fact, during the Stratfor hack, anonymouSabu's henchmen planted an email by CEO George Friedman claiming he had resigned, when in fact he had done no such thing. When you control a server you are able to fabricate any kind of email you want to "leak". Only a long conversation with realistic time stamps follow ups and reference emails to check for the writer's style, can possibly be used to confirm the authenticity of an email.
And BritAm has been silent!
Which means that this leak can be quickly dismissed as nothing more than a fabrication. The hack will of course be acknowledged as in the case of Stratfor. Who will you believe, BritAm or the hacker?
That's the problem. Soon, by undermining the validity of the leak in the minds of the media consumers, it will by extension, undermine the validity of the SEA leaks even though the latter is comprehensive and includes signed, scanned documents and a huge amount of cross references. That won't matter, a single "fake" can spoil all the real leaks.
But not this time! By anticipating this strategy and demanding a complete archive from "JAsIrX" before discussing the leak any further, we can burn this possible Trojan horse before it enters our gates.
It's a very interesting take on this, I think.
The shadow is a moral problem that challenges the whole ego-personality, for no one can become conscious of the shadow without considerable moral effort. To become conscious of it involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as present and real. This act is the essential condition for any kind of self-knowledge.
Quote:PD I have looked at all these documents, all the Iraqi stuff is 100% genuine and relate to daily operations for security teams looking after oil workers…. The Iran documents are purely training exercises for Saudi military using real threat scenarios. The only 2 mails in such a large file hack seems to really be the questionable thing, the guys mentioned in the mails are highly experienced military personnel and for sure would not communicate in this manner. This leak is not what it may appear….. and will put a lot of innocent people at risk….. I am one of them
"The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it." Karl Marx
"He would, wouldn't he?" Mandy Rice-Davies. When asked in court whether she knew that Lord Astor had denied having sex with her.
“I think it would be a good idea” Ghandi, when asked about Western Civilisation.
Former President Jimmy Carter and other foreign policy experts want the United States to ease its sanctions on terrorist organizations so professional peace groups can legally work with them.
Carter, along with the Charity & Security Network, sent a petition to Secretary of State John Kerry Thursday, asking that peace groups be exempted from policies that make it a crime to offer training in negotiation and humanitarian law to terrorists, reports The Hill.
"The Secretary of State can, and should, exempt peace-building activities from this counterproductive application of the law," the petition says. "Doing so would open the door for professional peace-builders to fully engage in helping to end armed conflicts and suffering around the world, while making the United States safer."
The Charity and Security Network said its past efforts to work with the Taliban in Afghanistan; Hamas in the Palestinian territories; and guerilla fighters in Colombia have all been hindered by federal laws, many of which were enacted after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
In addition, the Supreme Court ruled in 2010 that humanitarian aid fits the Patriot Act's definition of "material support" for terrorism, saying the aid frees up money used by terrorist groups for criminal activities while legalizing them.
The petition signees included more than two dozen groups and former officials. Among them: Mercy Corps; Andrew Natsios, the former administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development under President George W. Bush; retired Ambassador Thomas Pickering; and Anne-Marie Slaughter, the director of policy planning at the State Department from 2009-2011.
Former President Jimmy Carter and other foreign policy experts want the United States to ease its sanctions on terrorist organizations so professional peace groups can legally work with them.
Carter, along with the Charity & Security Network, sent a petition to Secretary of State John Kerry Thursday, asking that peace groups be exempted from policies that make it a crime to offer training in negotiation and humanitarian law to terrorists, reports The Hill.
"The Secretary of State can, and should, exempt peace-building activities from this counterproductive application of the law," the petition says. "Doing so would open the door for professional peace-builders to fully engage in helping to end armed conflicts and suffering around the world, while making the United States safer."
What Carter and the Charity & Security Network is asking for is more than reasonable. But the last thing TPTB want in this world is peace. No big profits in that.
"The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it." Karl Marx
"He would, wouldn't he?" Mandy Rice-Davies. When asked in court whether she knew that Lord Astor had denied having sex with her.
“I think it would be a good idea” Ghandi, when asked about Western Civilisation.
resident Bill Clinton eventually decided to use air power inthe Balkans. And it brought the Serbian government to its knees. ![[Image: archive.png?w=500&h=311]](http://syriancommando.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/archive.png)
![[Image: britam.png?w=500]](http://syriancommando.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/britam.png)
![[Image: sea_leaks.png?w=500]](http://syriancommando.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/sea_leaks.png?w=500)