Monday, 26 August 2013

Are we sure we want to start World War III?

Are we sure we want to start World War III?

By Dark Politricks

This is the question we should be debating when we talk about Syria, especially after this latest chemical weapon attack.

So far the claims that the attack was carried out by President Assad's forces have not been proved and seeing that the history of previous claims has actually led to the door of the rebels we should be wary about jumping in head first.

Why President Assad would attack defenceless woman and children with chemical weapons instead of the rebel forces I have no idea.

He knows that Obama and the west has made "chemical weapons" their red line and even though we have backtracked from storming into Syria on previous occasions we have been funding and supporting the rebels covertly for some time now.

However with politicians in the USA, UK and France all getting war crazy after the latest attack we should be very wary of attacking Syria without 100% proof that:

a) Assad was behind the attacks and

b) We are prepared to see high-tech Russian made missiles flying all over the middle east.

Rep. Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., the top Democrat on the House Foreign Relations Committee, is telling TV stations that Obama should ignore the War Powers Act, as he did over Libya and go straight into Syria first and ask Congress for permission later.


And the UK's foreign secretary, William Hague, is indicating that the axis of war, USA, UK and France could go it alone in Syria without consent from the UN. He told the BBC today that:

"Diplomacy has not worked in Syria" and that:
"We, the United States, many other countries including France, are clear that we can't allow the idea in the 21st century that chemical weapons can be used with impunity," as well as implying that military action could be taken “without complete unity on the UN Security Council” and stressed that such action would be “in accordance with international law”.
He also parroted the official line, that has yet to be proven, that the main suspect behind the attack is indeed the Syrian regime and there was “no other plausible explanation”.

Obviously this is biased and playing to one point of view, a western imperialist one, that ignores past facts and uncomfortable truths about the nature of the rebels we are so eager to back in Syria.

An earlier independent UN investigation into the use of chemical weapons by the former Swiss attorney-general Ms Del Ponte suggested that previous chemical weapon attacks were carried out by Syrian rebels NOT the forces of President Assad.

She claimed that there was “strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof” that the rebels had used the nerve gas Sarin. However this point of view was obviously dismissed out of hand by the axis of war as it didn't fit their desired outcome.

I can only suspect that the "independent" investigators sent to examine recent claims of a chemical weapon attack have been picked more "thoroughly" this time.

This comes on top of a recent raid by Turkish security forces who found a 2 kg cylinder filled with sarin gas after searching the homes of Al-Nusra Syrian militants. The raid was carried out in the southern provinces of Adana and Mersia and the gas was allegedly going to be used to carry out a chemical attack in the southern Turkish city of Adana.

Russia Today, although not exactly fair and biased when it comes to their allies, as is the BBC, FOX or CNN, recently reported that the Syrian army had found a huge chemical weapons factory just outside Damascus.

Obviously this news wasn't reported much on western TV.


We also have proof that talk of a "false flag" attack to pin blame on Assad and make an attack on Syria possible is not so far-fetched after all.

Hacked emails from defense contractor Britam revealed a plan which was apparently “approved by Washington” and funded by Qatar, to stage a chemical weapons attack in Syria.

This false flag attack is something many people have warned about and it would provide the war mongers the perfect excuse to start their next war of distraction. If you haven't seen this point of view being espoused on mainstream media then you are getting your news from the wrong sources, alternative media sites have been talking about this possibility for years now.

I most recently talked about our hypocrisy in supporting al-Qaeda linked terrorists in Syria, which follows on from our support of them in Libya, Kosovo and back into time.  It seems we are fond of using al-Qaeda as the bogeyman to strip our liberties at home but support them in any way possible to destabilise our enemies abroad.

Washington's Blog gave a great breakdown on the doubt cast about the recent chemical weapons attack recently and included quotes from experts in chemical weapons use.
John Hart, head of the Chemical and Biological Security Project at Stockholm International Peace Research Institute said he had not seen the telltale evidence in the eyes of the victims that would be compelling evidence of chemical weapons use.

“Of the videos that I’ve seen for the last few hours, none of them show pinpoint pupils… this would indicate exposure to organophosphorus nerve agents,” he said.

Gwyn Winfield, editor of CBRNe World magazine, which specialises in chemical weapons issues, said the evidence did not suggest that the chemicals used were of the weapons-grade that the Syrian army possesses in its stockpiles.

“We’re not seeing reports that doctors and nurses… are becoming fatalities, so that would suggest that the toxicity of it isn’t what we would consider military sarin. It may well be that it is a lower-grade,” Winfield told AFP.
Even the Israeli paper Haaretz cast doubts on the Syrian army being behind the attack.
Western experts on chemical warfare who have examined at least part of the footage are skeptical that weapons-grade chemical substances were used.

Dan Kaszeta, a former officer of the U.S. Army’s Chemical Corps and a leading private consultant, pointed out a number of details absent from the footage so far: “None of the people treating the casualties or photographing them are wearing any sort of chemical-warfare protective gear,” he says, “and despite that, none of them seem to be harmed.” This would seem to rule out most types of military-grade chemical weapons.

Additional questions also remain unanswered, especially regarding the timing of the attack, being that it occurred on the exact same day that a team of UN inspectors was in Damascus to investigate earlier claims of chemical weapons use.

It is also unclear what tactical goal the Syrian army would have been trying to achieve, when over the last few weeks it has managed to push back the rebels who were encroaching on central areas of the capital. But if this was not a chemical weapons attack, what then caused the deaths of so many people without any external signs of trauma?
So it seems that despite doubts by many, the axis of war are scheming and getting ready it seems to launch another war in breach of international law. We should be thinking twice about the consequences of such actions as it could be the "big war of distraction" that many have been waiting for.

Russia has already claimed it would supply advanced missile systems to Syria including missiles that "never miss their target", and whilst Putin has claimed that Israel wouldn't be attacked if they stayed out of the conflict it is obvious by their attacks into Syria so far that this would be unlikely.

Therefore a full-scale war with Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and maybe Russia on one side, with the axis of war, Israel, al-Nusra Front, al-Qaeda and the Free Syrian Army on the other seems likely.

Even I had to read that sentence a few times when I wrote it!

Are we really prepared to fight alongside al-Qaeda linked rebels? The same people we blame for 9.11 and the war on terror?

Are we prepared to go to war to support the same sort of people who beheaded a UK soldier, Lee Rigby, on the streets of London only months back? People like these?

rt.com />


And Russia isn't going to play nice this time.

Putin has passed on diplomatic messages to the axis of war claiming that they will supply weapons that have never been seen in the Middle East before.

These will include top of the range, S 400 system has a range of over 400 miles and is considered more than a decade ahead of the most advanced US counterpart. Syria is already, along with Iran, likely to have the older S 300 missile system installed and ready for use.

Russian S-400 Missile System

Russian Barrel 24 Launchers


It seems that years ago the Soviets and then Russians, adopted a new tactic, instead of the cold war, gun for gun, tank for tank race with NATO. Instead of building and maintaining a huge expensive arsenal they instead looked for weaknesses in their opponents defences and then came up with ways to exploit them.

It seems that with their new range of missiles that they may have done that, although I'm sure with the amount of money the USA spends on its military it won't have sat back and just allowed the Russians to implement superior weapons that could defeat them.

However from talk on various military and defence sites it does seem that the Russian's do have some of the top anti-ship missile technology available on the planet at the moment.

Missiles such as the SS-N-22 "Sunburn" which has a speed of Mach 2.5 or 1500 miles an hour, uses stealth technology and has a range up to 130 miles. They also have the "Yakhonts",  SSN-X-26 cruise missile which has a range of 185 miles and could make all US / NATO ships in the Persian Gulf or Mediterranean vulnerable to attack.

Whilst the US has been installing new anti-aircraft missile defence systems the missiles they are likely to face have never been tested in combat in real situations therefore until that time comes theoretical debates on defence system websites will be just that.

However despite the two armies never having actually "faced off", so to speak, if the war in Syria heats up enough we might be crazy enough to see who's missile system really is the best.

Are we really willing to risk a possible World War just to support a civil war we have no right being involved in?

Are we prepared to be called "hypocrites" again for breaching international law, ignoring the UN and choosing who can and can't start wars in the world?

And do we really want to risk a major war all on unproven evidence of a chemical weapons attack that in all likelihood was a staged attack by the rebels?

It seems that whenever a big peace talk, convention or inspection in Syria is about to happen a new "major crime against humanity" just happens to occur. Is this just luck or are the Syrian rebels trying to force our hand by using false flag attacks to pin the blame on Assad?

Before we are willing to risk the lives of millions shouldn't our politicians be 100% sure that their facts over this attack are right first?  

View the orginal article Are we ready to go to war with Russia over Syria? at darkpolitricks.com.

Monday, 19 August 2013

Do you have to be a dead journalist nowadays to be considered a real one?

Do you have to be a dead journalist nowadays to be considered a real one?

By Dark Politricks

It seems that 2013 has been the year that the Empire finally threw away any semblance of liberty and free speech and decided to go for broke in its attack on all those who dare speak truth to power. They sure have been cranking the screws on anyone who speaks out against them in the last few months.

Just this week we have had David Miranda, the partner of Glenn Greenwaldheld and robbed by UK authorities all under the guise of anti terrorism laws at Heathrow airport.

Once again this is another abuse of this law by the UK government. However this is to be expected as the UK government doesn't exactly have a good record on it's implentation.

If you can remember the Brown government mis-used the law when he froze Icelandic bank accounts during their banking crisis. Oh and of course there was the Blair governments arrest of the 82-year-old anti Iraq war protestor Walter Wolfgang who was dragged out of the Labour conference for heckling Jack Straw.

Plus our new anti terrorism acts (2000 and 2006) have been used to detain arrestees for up to 28 days without charge, restricted the right to protest and limited free speech in many areas all whilst giving our police new powers to stop and search people they think "could be" terrorists. These groups mainly consist of people who take photographs of policemen or London landmarks, or it seems the partners of journalists breaking stories on illegal surveillance by the state.

It seems the UK's implementation of anti terrorism laws has been used more to chill dissent and increase the polices power to abuse due process rather than to attack true terrorists. How hypocritical it is that we attack whistleblowers and journalists whilst fund and support al-Nusra Front jihadists and al-Qaeda linked LIFG rebels in our game of chess in the Middle East.

It shames me to be a Brit when we suck up to the USA in this way.

It seems we are so desperate for American money to keep the cogs running in our GCHQ super computers that we will bend over backwards anyway possible to help the US attack their own "domestic extremists".

We will do anything from detaining and robbing the partners of reporters who break stories on massive NSA surveillance or manning a 24 siege of the building in which another whistleblower is hiding out.

I wouldn't be surprised if I woke up tomorrow and heard on the news that David Cameron had authorised a drone strike on the Ecuadorian embassy and killed Julian Assange.

It sure would make the COINTELPRO littered US "press" happy to hear of his deathA certain Michael Grunwald would certainly love to write that particular obituary.

Again the Terrorism Act from 2000 was used to detain Glenn Greenwalds partner, a dubious use of the law at the very least and one which Glenn promises revenge on the UK government. I don't doubt he has many more secrets about the cosy affair between GCHQ and the NSA to reveal but he surely must be worried about the climate which now surrounds any journalist willing to go head to head with the beast.

Would the USA stoop to such levels as to actually dispatch with pesky journalists who reveal state secrets from whistleblowers?

Some people already believe this has been the case for years.

Recently we had the mysterious death of Michael Hastings who died in a mysterious car crash after going on the run due to fears he had about a story he was working on.

Apparently top US Army officials told the Rolling Stone journalist that he would be hunted down and killed over his story that lead to General McChrystal’s downfall and he was apparently working on a massive story concerning the CIA. This was all before he warned friends he had to go off the radar due to worries about his safety and then surprisingly his car exploded in an unusual accident.

With recent revelations that DARPA or anyone else with the skills can hack into computers on board cars nowadays it doesn't seem so far-fetched to believe he was taken out by some agency annoyed with his work. With computers controlling everything from dishwashers to cars and with NSA/GCHQ super computers able to pinpoint phones and GPS co-ordinates in real-time it wouldn't take a genius in this day and age with the right software to do some damage with a few keystrokes.

Got a webcam on your PC? Well just hope it's just your friends watching your pretty face from afar and not an NSA nerd or even your local school!

Then there was the case of Gary Webb who was found dead in an apparent suicide in 2000 apparently from "multiple gun shots to the head", an common way to kill yourself it seems for journalists and whistleblowers.

Gary Webb was the reporter who had famously broke the story about the CIA running guns to the Contra's and drugs back to the states. It was the CIA's coke that started the Los Angeles crack wars in the 80's and made a certain CIA owned drug dealer Ricky “Freeway Ricky” Ross very rich. It was his story that led to the black community and the NAACP trying to get congressional hearings held into the allegations.

Bary Seal, one of the CIA's drug running pilots was also famously found pumped full of bullets after threatening to expose the same CIA drug running scam that had the Bush families finger prints all over it. Even after his car had been sweeped "clean" by the personal phone number of a certain then Vice President George Herbert Walker Bush was found in his possession!

The Colombian drug dealers convicted of the crime believed they working for a certain Oliver North and the fingerprints that led to the Iran Contra scandal and Mena drug operation that link nearly everyone in the Bush family to Bill Clinton were all over the hit.

So it wouldn't be a total shock after the history of covert assassinations to hear on the news one day that Glenn Greenwald had been found dead along with his partner David. Probably after a heated argument overhead by an anonymous caller to the police. The official story would be that Glenn was found dead, supposedly having committed suicide after first killing his partner. Of course he would have shot himself three or four times in the head just to make sure of course.

Therefore if I was Glenn I would be slightly wary about waging all out war on the US/US axis of war. Of course he is well within his rights to do so and I wish he brings the whole house down if he possibly can, however it is clear he has been marked by the powers that be.

Co-opted and "owned" mainstream personalities have attacked him and even suggested he be arrested for his work with Edward Snowden.  David Gregory from Meet the Press asked why Glenn shouldn't be charged with a crime for aiding his source Snowden in revealing NSA secrets and CNBC host Andrew Ross Rokin also suggested that Greenwald should be arrested.

And those are just a few of the debates Glenn is having online with numerous, and obvious, Government paid spokesmen. All these propagandists for the Empire who read from scripts handed to them by the NSA/CIA are not real journalists and their attacks on Glenn just prove that the US media can no longer be trusted to hold anything to account, let alone the Government.

It seems a sad state of affairs when you cannot be considered a real journalist unless you are running in fear from the Government and their partners across the globe.

Is it really a choice between breaking a really major story such as the CIA drug smuggling, NSA spying, or US war crimes and then ending up dead, looking for asylum or locked up in a military prison for years?

All the while talking heads get paid millions just to parrot official stories and take the Governments word on everything. It must be hard to look in the mirror when you call yourself a journalist but don't dare put your head above the parapet.

"Everything's ok, just keep shopping", they say as the world burns and the constitution continues to be shredded piece by piece.

What a choice it has become. To be paid millions for toeing the line and having no moral fibre at all, or dare speak truth to power and risk two in the head or a life on the run.

View the original article Do you have to be a harassed journalist nowadays to be considered a real one? at darkpolitricks.com

Tuesday, 13 August 2013

Fight Internet Censorship with the Pirate Bay's PirateBrowser

Fight Internet Censorship with the Pirate Bay's PirateBrowser

By Dark Politricks

To celebrate it's 10th birthday the worlds most infamous censored site, The Pirate Bay, has introduced its own Internet browser to enable people to access its website even if it's being blocked by your ISP.

Most big ISP's have blocked The Pirate Bay for its users claiming it breaches copyright by allowing people to download Torrents of films and music.

If you don't know what a torrent it it's a movie split into thousands of small pieces. Each piece is stored on various computers so that each user is not in theory holding a full version of a film that may be breaching copyright. When you download  the torrent the files are all put together and downloaded from their various locations.

However most ISP's still see this as copyright violation and even though The Pirate Bay is just like Google in the fact they are just a search engine and don't actually host the films or music they have been attacked from all quarters.

Is Your ISP Blocking You?

You can quickly test whether you are being blocked by your ISP by clicking these links which all point to the Pirate Bay Website.

http://thepiratebay.org

http://thepiratebay.sx

https://piratereverse.info

Check More Pirate Bay Proxies

If you want a PHP script that will scan a number of known Pirate Bay Proxies then you can download this one I quickly knocked up from here: Pirate Bay Proxy Checker Script.

Just change the file extension to .php and either run it from your local computer or server. If you are running Windows I recommend downloading WAMP so that you can run an Apache server on your PC.

I also recommend changing the port number the server runs on to 8080 or 8888 so it can run side by side with IIS. This article will explain how to set WAMP up.

The benefits of running your own local webserver on your PC are many. You can make scripts such as web proxies, scrapers, scanners, BOTS, proxy hunters and many more cool tools. Plus the great thing is that the only IP address that will show up on the remote hosts log files will be 127.0.0.1 (unless you set up a different IP).

As this is the standard loopback localhost address there is no way for someone checking a logfile to know where in the world you are unless they have further information. Therefore running a local server, especially over another wifi network than your own is ideal for a wide range of HTTP activity.

Use Pirate Bay Tor Browser

If you are being blocked from the Pirate Bay by your ISP then you have a number of choices.

1. Find a working mirror to the site - e.g search for Pirate Bay Proxies on DuckDuckgo.com or try this page: http://torrentproxies.com/ to find some not blocked by your ISP. Many mirrors will first open up in something called adf.ly with a JavaScript countdown. After a few seconds a link will appear saying "click here to continue". On clicking the page will change (usually to an advert with a blue bar at the top) and in the top right corner will be another countdown saying "Please Wait". Usually after 5 seconds it will say "SKIP AD" and on clicking it you will end up at the Pirate Bay mirror site.

2. Use a proxy to access the Pirate Bay. There are many free proxies out there and you can find a good list at http://nntime.com/proxy-list-01.htm. Use a tool like FoxyProxy to manage your proxy lists and toggle between them. Or you can go into your browsers network / proxy settings and manually enter the IP address and port number you want to use.

3. Download the new Pirate Bay Browser or the Mozilla TOR Browser. Both of which access the TOR network to help disguise your internet footprint by bouncing your HTTP requests through a series of servers.  As the TOR website explains.


"Tor protects you by bouncing your communications around a distributed network of relays run by volunteers all around the world: it prevents somebody watching your Internet connection from learning what sites you visit, and it prevents the sites you visit from learning your physical location. Tor works with many of your existing applications, including web browsers, instant messaging clients, remote login, and other applications based on the TCP protocol."


With all the outrage surrounding the NSA spying on ALL American citizens and the recent revelations that they are using this information not only to catch terrorists but to catch petty criminals, drug dealers, tax avoiders and to spy on and blackmail politicians and judges it is in everyone's best interests that they tighten up on their Internet Security.

As this article I wrote explains there are a number of measures you can take to reduce your Internet footprint and whilst you might be totally invisible you can blend into the background.

So do yourself a favour and use the Pirate Bay browser or the TOR Mozilla Browser. Not only does making use of the TOR network help protect your privacy but the Pirate Bay Browser will let you access a number of Pirate Bay Mirror sites and bypass any censorship that your ISP or country may have introduced.

Download the TOR Browser


Download the TOR Browser


Once installed when you open the .EXE you will connect to the TOR network.

Joining the TOR network

Once connected you can use the Firefox browser to surf the web. All your Pirate Bay Mirror sites and other Torrent sites are linked at the top in the icon bar. Pick one and then carry out your search for movies, applications or other content.

As you can see it's just a search engine like Google which makes it very unfair that the Pirate Bay is being blocked by ISP's as Google also indexes illegal content such as porn and copyrighted material.

This is a search for the US TV show Dexter.

The Pirate Bay Browser

Like most search engines once you run a search you get your results.

The Pirate Bay Search Results

As you can see from the results on the right there are two columns, seeders and leachers.

You want to choose an item with as many seeders (uploaders) and as few leachers (downloaders) as possible to get a quick download.

You can also tell from the names of the file what sort they are e.g if the file has the word CAM in it then it's a poor quality camera in a cinema job. If it's HDTV quality it will be a bigger better quality file and BRRip is a BluRay copy.

Clicking on the file you want will open up the result page. Hopefully you will get comments telling you the quality of the file. Click on "Get This Torrent" to download your torrent file.

Downloading a Torrent from the Pirate Bay

When you want to download a torrent from the Pirate Bay you will first need to have a torrent client. There are many out there including:
www.utorrent.com/downloads/win

bitlord.soft32.com/

www.bittorrent.com/
Once you have one installed your application of choice you can just click on the torrent in your search results and it will open up in the client and start downloading.

As you can see whilst you download the file you will also be uploading at the same time. This way you are not just taking without giving back the files you have already leached. You can control the bandwidth ratio between upload and download as well as set limits on the rate you upload.

Downloading a Torrent in UTorrent

However bewarned, ISP's are also on the lookout for people downloading (leaching) and uploading (seeding) torrents so you need to protect yourself.

Some of the ways include:
-Using someone else's WIFI or network.

-Using an anonymous proxy that doesn't leak identifying information or even better a VPN. A paid for tool like BTGuard which is both a proxy and encryption tool which helps prevent your ISP throttle your traffic.

-Using a block list which will mean that all traffic is bounced around ISP routers so that they cannot scan the traffic.

-Setting your download port to a common port for other traffic such as 80 or 8080  (HTTP) so that it doesn't look obvious you are downloading P2P data. Most people use a "random port" but it is better to look like you are downloading HTTP content especially if you are encrypting your traffic as well.

-Limiting your upload rate to a minimum. Although this violates the spirit of P2P (sharing) the people going after you for stealing copyrighted material are more interested in those spreading (uploading) the content rather than downloading it.

-Ensuring you force outgoing traffic to be encrypted. This will help prevent your ISP see that you are using BitTorrent traffic and may prevent them throttling your bandwidth.

-Set a download cap on your traffic. Even if you are encrypting your traffic some ISP's may see the amount you are downloading and throttle it if they think you are up to no good.

-Using an application like PeerBlock which will block traffic from known bad IP addresses such as P2P blocklists, known bad IP addresses, spyware, FBI and copyright monitoring sites and so on. It is worth downloading and just sits in the background running as you do you're downloading.
As with most security measures a wide range of different measures is much better than just relying on one system.

Hopefully this article will help you make use of The Pirate Bay if you have been blocked so far.

View the original article The Pirate Bay Introduce "The PirateBrowser" at darkpolitricks.com.

Sunday, 11 August 2013

Can the Pentagon Attack finally be solved?

Is The Pentagon Attack Finally Solved?

By Dark Politricks

I recently wrote a piece called the Pentagon Attack which contained a number of videos. However it also contained a number of questions related to the 9.11 event as a whole. This article is a summary containing the events regarding the Pentagon attack alone.

If you have the time I suggest you watch all these videos, as together they can be used to make a reasonable conclusion about what really happened at the Pentagon. Even if the first documentary has one conclusion please watch the second talk as it will explain the evidence piece by piece and can be used to explain why the first documentary comes to it's conclusion.

Why is the Pentagon Attack such a point of contention?

There are a number of reasons including:

1. The conflicting witness accounts. Some witnesses claim to have seen a plane fly over the building, some into it. Others claim to have heard the explosion first and then seen a plane in the sky.

2. The physical evidence. Some witnesses and photos show a clean front lawn outside the official impact zone. Other photos show plane debris. Witnesses claim to have walked through the holes in the wall and to have not seen any evidence of a plane at all.

3. Pilots and aircraft experts claim that the manoeuvre made by Nawaf Hazmi, the alleged terrorist, was too complicated and fast for even expert pilots to have made let alone an amateur with poor piloting skills. Other people claim the flight path could have been made even if it would have meant a huge plane flying at high speeds just metres above the Pentagon lawn, something engineers suggest is impossible.

Due to the US government refusing to release all CCTV and camera footage which may have caught the planes impact and put conspiracy theories to bed the Pentagon attack has been used by believers of the official story to beat many 911 Truthers over the head with. Many people see the Pentagon attack as a way to discredit the whole 911 Truth movement by claiming that they are ignoring physical evidence and witness accounts. If you can be dismissed at the Pentagon then your theories over the WTC and the whole event can be dismissed as well.

Any talk of missiles, no planes, holograms, lasers from space or mini nukes are all used to label anyone who looks into the events of 9.11 as crazy. To the uninitiated it doesn't matter if any of these theories have merits or not because just hearing these theories can make the whole movement look like tinfoil hat wearing loons. Due to that, people unwilling to question their government can easily dismiss any uncomfortable facts.

Therefore questions about the evidence regarding the Pentagon needs to be looked at and answered if possible. Hopefully these two videos which look at the witness evidence in detail and then a talk by an ex Government official who slots all the pieces together will help.

The facts do not fit the evidence.

The impact zone that is supposedly where Flight 77 hit the Pentagon does not fit the evidence for a number of reasons.

1. The supposed impact zone is the first two floors of a wedge of the building that would have been impossible for a huge Boeing 757 to hit at 400 mph. Not only could a plane not fly that fast and low to the ground without crashing first. The dimensions of the plane do not allow it to create such a small hole.

Many pilots, aircraft specialists, engine designers have all gone on record to state that the downforce of a large plane flying that fast and low to the ground would mean it would have crashed way before the walls of the Pentagon. If that had happened the grass outside the impact zone would have been scorched and covered with debris.

The whole plane would NOT have entered the walls of the building.



2. There is a lack of evidence outside this "official" impact zone. No big parts of nose cones, no huge multi-ton engines and no damage to the lawn in front of the damaged building. In fact the debris which was found was further along the building in front of a totally different wedge. This is explained later.

pentagon picture september 11
The "official" impact zone of Flight 77 at the Pentagon

3. A plane is made from lightweight materials. It cannot punch its way through 3 rings of re-inforced concrete as it supposedly did at the Pentagon. The following video shows what happens when a plane going at the speed of 475 mph hits just one re-enforced concrete wall.

Notice how the wall remains solid and the plane disappears into small pieces. This speed is basically the same speed as Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.


Witnesses Dispute Official Story

This video is from an independent report by Citizen Investigation Team which uses data from the Pilots For 911Truth.

A number of witnesses who claim to have the seen the plane fly in towards the Pentagon provide contradictory evidence to the official story.

These are all people who have worked in the area of the Pentagon for years. Either Policemen, Arlington Cemetery workers or aircraft specialists from the Pentagon itself.

The official story relies on a Southern approach to the hole in the wall that is the supposed entry point for Flight 77. However all these witnesses claim to have witnessed:

-A north bound approach with the plane flying to the right (or over) the Navy Annex in a totally different manner to the official report which requires it to fly to the left of that building.

-A slower speed of the plane. Not a fast 450 mph plane approach as the official story claims.

-A plane that was wobbling, "banking" and correcting its angle - not a direct, fast, straight trajectory.

-All of these witnesses whilst in positions to see the plane come in admit they couldn't see the impact. Most were running away from the direction of the planes impact, covered their heads or were not in a position to see the impact.

-All have refused to change their testimony since it has been revealed to them that it directly contradicts the official story and whilst many now refuse to give further interviews they claim their story is correct.

-The one piece of evidence which corroborates the official story is the testimony of a taxi driver, Lloyd England, who claims to have been hit by the tall light pole that was supposedly bent by the plane as it flew the official trajectory.

However leaving aside the fact that a 450 mph plane hitting a goose or bird can cause a crash, let alone a large metal pole, the witness when confronted with his evidence and how it contradicts all other witness accounts tries to change his story to make it fit with the other witnesses.

He is also caught off tape many times making contradictory statements to the location of his taxi in direct conflict with the physical evidence and photographs which prove his exact location on the day.

He refuses to admit his car was where it was photographed and off camera alludes to the fact that:
"It has nothing to do with the truth it's his story"

"This is too big for me man this is a big thing"

"Man you know this is a world thing happening. I'm a small man."

"I'm not supposed to be involved in this."...."This is for other people, people who have money and all this kind of stuff."

"I'm not supposed to be involved in this, I have nothing."

"It was planned."
He seems to be alluding to be part of a story he has no control over, "a small man in a rich mans story" and he seems to admit to being part of a "story" to make the official story fit the facts. His wife also works for the FBI, although whether that has any importance I do not know.

Lloyd England Taxi Hit by light pole

 

Watch the 9/11-The Pentagon Attack Documentary



The conclusion of the documentary is that the plane the witnesses saw didn't hit the Pentagon. The witnesses who saw the incoming plane should be believed in that the planes trajectory was wildly different to the official story and that because they couldn't see the planes impact that it flew over the Pentagon. This conclusion would fit with the official analysis of the flight data recorder from Flight 77 which shows a discrepancy between the altitude of the plane and the official story.

For this plane to have to have hit the lamp-post which Lloyd England claims happened the plane would have had to have been 440 feet high! 

This is obviously an impossibility. What is clear from this documentary and the witness statements is that the official story doesn't even fit with the witness statements who are on record seeing a plane fly towards the Pentagon.

Ex Government Official Put Pieces Together

This talk from an ex Reagan administration official, Barbara Honegger, puts the pieces together meticulously in this talk to explain how the witnesses are right, the hole without debris is also correct and that a plane DID hit the Pentagon. An overview is this: 1. A plane, probably a drone painted in American Airlines colours, did fly into the Pentagon but it flew in the trajectory that the witnesses in the Citizen Investigation Team documentary claimed.

2. The drone was either destroyed before impact or hit the Pentagon causing all the debris that was found near the Heliport terminal. Remember this is NOT the official impact zone which is many yards around the building.

3. The official impact zone was caused by explosives inside the building. This explains why there is no debris outside on the grass. No debris found inside and why witnesses who walked through the hole to safety claimed to see no evidence of a plane.

4. This second explosion WAS reported on TV, by witnesses and Pentagon employees. The official story had to make this second explosion the plane impact even though the timings were out and the flight path didn't match with the witnesses. However there is no logical or physical way the damage from this second explosion could have been caused by a huge Boeing 757 flying 400+ mph into the first floor of the Pentagon.

5. Therefore the cover-up involved making this 2nd impact zone the official entry point for the plane even though a plane could never punch its way through 3 huge concrete walls as the video above shows.

6. This also explains perfectly how witnesses saw a plane hit the building, how other witnesses could claim to see no evidence of a plane at the impact zone and why people claim to have seen debris and others NO debris. There were TWO impact zones. One from a plane (drone) and one from an explosion.

Watch the video below to see how she puts all the pieces together and provides the reason for the attack. Without it, no declaration of war could be made which meant that the Pentagon attack WAS the main attack on 9.11.  As she points out, it was George W Bush himself that said that it wasn't until he saw the Pentagon attack that he realised the country was really at war.

Watch Barbara Honegger put the 9.11 Pentagon attack pieces together

Monday, 5 August 2013

USA is caught funding al-Qaeda

USA is caught funding al-Qaeda

By Dark Poltricks

Most people who haven't had their heads up their asses for the last decade have realised that something wasn't quite right concerning our supposed "mortal enemy" al-Qaeda.

For those citizens soaked in mainstream propaganda and believers of everything the government says, al-Qaeda is the new Soviet Union.

They are North Korea and Iran combined with the possibility of a dirty nuke or two thrown into the mix.

They were the architects of 9.11 and the reason we have been at war for the past decade.

They are the reason some people are willing to give their lives fighting for "freedom" in Afghanistan or Iraq.

However for those people who know some history they have never been too far away from our intelligence agencies control. As Robin Cook the ex UK Home Secretary informed us after the London bombings in an article he wrote for the Guardian. Al-Qaeda are nothing more than a creation of the CIA.

"Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. al-Qaeda, literally “the database”, was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians. " - Robin Cook, The Guardian, 2005
Created as a pawn by Zbigniew Brzezinski to play on his Grand Chessboard. Al-Qaeda, or as they were known back then, the Mujahideen, were a group of CIA funded Islamic "freedom fighters" who were fighting the USA's proxy war against the USSR during the 80's. Designed to draw the Soviet Union into their very own Vietnam and sap the strength and morale from the conscript army, the clash of civilisations was never meant to be the west versus Islam but the atheist communists fighting the huge swathes of Islamic people contained within their old borders.

The Afghan war certainly did as the USA wanted and a decade was spent funding what we know now as al-Qaeda. Osama bin-Laden and other Islamic fighters were trained, funded and even praised by the USA back then as heroes and revolutionaries as they took out Soviet helicopters with American ground to air missiles and used the opium harvests to get the Soviet conscripts addicted and de-moralised whilst spending the profits on their war.

Ronald Reagan meets the al-Qaeda / Mujahideen
Ronald Reagan meets the Mujahideen / al-Qaeda rebels at the White House

The “Islamic Jihad” (or holy war against the Soviets) became an integral part of the CIA’s intelligence ploy. It was supported by the United States and Saudi Arabia, with a significant part of the funding generated from the Golden Crescent drug trade:
“In March 1985, President Reagan signed National Security Decision Directive 166 … [which] authorize[d] stepped-up covert military aid to the Mujahideen, and it made clear that the secret Afghan war had a new goal: to defeat Soviet troops in Afghanistan through covert action and encourage a Soviet withdrawal. The new covert U.S. assistance began with a dramatic increase in arms supplies — a steady rise to 65,000 tons annually by 1987 … as well as a “ceaseless stream” of CIA and Pentagon specialists who travelled to the secret headquarters of Pakistan’s ISI on the main road near Rawalpindi, Pakistan. There, the CIA specialists met with Pakistani intelligence officers to help plan operations for the Afghan rebels.” - Steve Coll, The Washington Post, July 19, 1992.


What is less known by many is that these close links between al-Qaeda and the west continued far after the end of the Afghan / Soviet war. The Mujahideen were recruited by the CIA from a large number of Muslim countries including jihadists from the Soviet Muslim republics.

Among these recruits was the leader of the Chechnya rebellion Shamil Basayev who in the immediate fall of the USSR led Chechnya’s first secessionist war against Russia. Shamil Basayev had links to US intelligence from the late 1980s. He was involved in the 1991 coup d’Etat which led to the break-up of the Soviet Union and was subsequently involved in Chechnya’s unilateral declaration of independence from the Russian Federation in November 1991.

During his training in Afghanistan, Shamil Basayev linked up with Saudi born veteran Mujahideen Commander “Al Khattab” who had fought as a volunteer in Afghanistan. Barely a few months after Basayev’s return to Grozny, Khattab was invited (early 1995) to set up an army base in Chechnya for the training of Mujahideen fighters. According to the BBC, Khattab’s posting to Chechnya had been “arranged through the Saudi-Arabian based [International] Islamic Relief Organisation, a militant religious organisation, funded by mosques and rich individuals which channeled funds into Chechnya”. - BBC, 29 September 1999.

Therefore it is no lie to suggest that the CIA and the west created and supported what was later known as al-Qaeda. In fact bin-Laden and his group were actually a very small organisation and when the time came to paint them as a bogey man it was apt that the CIA's own book of jihadists would be the name for the new bogeyman under the bed.

The UK, as attested to by ex MI5 agent David Shayler, funded an al-Qaeda offshoot called the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) to assassinate Col. Gaddafi during the 90's. His whistleblowing led to his imprisonment for breaking the official secrets act and the case rocked the front pages of the UK press for quite a time.

As reported by major UK papers the plot involved:

"..contacts between MI6 and a group of Middle Eastern plotters who tried unsuccessfully to blow up Gadaffi's motorcade. The report, coded CX95/ 53452, was passed to senior Foreign Office officials. It revealed when and where the assassination attempt was due and said that at least 250 British-made weapons were distributed among the plotters. The four-page CX document was published on the California-based Yahoo! website. The Sunday Times has complied with a request by Rear-Admiral Nick Wilkinson, secretary of the government's defence, press and broadcasting advisory committee, not to print the address of the website on which the CX report is published." - Sunday Times, 13 February 2000


In fact we were so concerned about the dangers of the LIFG, al-Qaeda and bin-Laden that we even ignored an Interpol arrest warrant that was issued by Libya for bin-Laden and even helped linked terrorists evade capture by granting them political asylum.
"British intelligence paid large sums of money to an al-Qaeda cell in Libya in a doomed attempt to assassinate Colonel Gadaffi in 1996 and thwarted early attempts to bring Osama bin Laden to justice.... two French intelligence experts ......reveal that the first Interpol arrest warrant for bin Laden was issued by Libya in March 1998. According to journalist Guillaume Dasquié and Jean-Charles Brisard, an adviser to French President Jacques Chirac, British and US intelligence agencies buried the fact that the arrest warrant had come from Libya ....... Five months after the warrant was issued, al-Qaeda killed more than 200 people in the truck bombings of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.... The Libyan al-Qaeda cell included Anas al-Liby, who remains on the US government's most wanted list with a reward of $25 million for his capture. He is wanted for his involvement in the African embassy bombings. Al-Liby was with bin Laden in Sudan before the al-Qaeda leader returned to Afghanistan in 1996. Astonishingly, despite suspicions that he was a high-level al-Qaeda operative, al-Liby was given political asylum in Britain and lived in Manchester until May of 2000" - The Observer, 2002.
Then there was the Kosovan war in the Balkans in which we decided to support the Islamic separatists against their Serbian government and fought alongside the al-Qaeda linked KLA. The Washington Times reported on reports from Janes Defence Review that:
"..the town of Tropoje, Albania was a"common staging area" for Bin Laden’s and the KLA’s forces, and thus "a center for Islamic terrorists." US intelligence also acknowledged that Bin Ladin’s al-Qaeda had "both trained and financially supported" the Albanians, and that the Kosovo border had been infiltrated by Bosnian, Chechen and Afghan mujahedeen, in "…crossings (which) originated in neighboring Albania and, according to the reports, included parties of up to 50 men." - Washington Times, 4th May 1999.


Lenard Cohen a professor of political science at Simon Fraser University stated that:
"The arrival in the Balkans of the so-called Afghan Arabs, who are from various Middle Eastern states and linked to al-Qaeda, began in 1992 soon after the war in Bosnia."
Mujahedeen Fighters, who had fought in Afghanistan against the Soviet occupation in the 1980s later "migrated to Bosnia hoping to assist their Islamic brethren in a struggle against Serbian [and for a time] Croatian forces."

Slobodan Milosevic actually tried to present this evidence at his trial in the Hague for war crimes and logically it seems strange that the western NATO forces were fighting alongside known terrorists against a Christian country. commenting on Milosevic's evidence, James Bissett, an expert on Balkans affairs and a former Canadian ambassador to Yugoslavia stated that:
"Milosevic is right. There is no question of their participation in conflicts in the Balkans. It is very well documented."

"Many members of the Kosovo Liberation Army were sent for training in terrorist camps in Afghanistan,"
So it was well-known that during the 90's when al-Qaeda was starting to be pushed by the media as a worldwide terrorist organisation that we still had close links to this dangerous force. Were our western intelligence agencies actually in control of this terrorist group or were we only in control of key assets within al-Qaeda like bin-Laden who enabled us to pull their strings?

I don't know but even after 9.11 when the world was up in arms at the group for supposedly attacking the USA in the most sophisticated terrorist attack known in history evidence emerged to show that we were still closely linked to the group.

Even worse it suggested we were even linked to the terrorists who had carried out the attacks! Were we funding them? Were they double-crossing us or did we allow them to carry out the attack to fulfil the aims prophesied in the Project for the New American Century document - Rebuilding America's Defences.

Sibel Edmonds, an ex FBI translator, was gagged and prevented from telling the world what she knew. She has offered to break her silence on US mainstream news but oddly no news channel has taken her up on this offer. However we do know from her comments that she claims:

“With those groups, we had operations in Central Asia,” said former Turkish language translator Sibel Edmonds on Friday speaking on the radio program, the Mike Malloy Show. Sibel said the US maintained ‘intimate relations’ with bin Laden, and the Taliban, “all the way until that day of September 11.”

These ‘intimate relations’ included using bin Laden for ‘operations’ in Central Asia, including Xinjiang, China. These ‘operations’ involved using al-Qaida and the Taliban in the same manner “as we did during the Afghan and Soviet conflict,” that is, fighting ‘enemies’ via proxies. - Sibel Edmonds, Times of India, Aug 3rd 2009.
So the American government doesn't want the close ties between the US government and al-Qaeda to be known otherwise they wouldn't have gagged Sibel Edmonds. Also we know from investigations carried out after 9.11 that the Israeli government was closely following the 9.11 terrorists around the USA, even living doors away from them at times. If this is true then why didn't they tell the USA, and if they did then did someone ignore their warning? Was this deliberate?

Even the staunch right wing, nationalistic and pro-war FOX News carried out a 4 part investigation into these Israeli spy rings. An investigation which was soon taken down from their website due to pressure by pro-Israeli pressure groups. You can read the full investigation on my site but key parts include:
"Since Sept. 11, more than 60 Israelis have been arrested or detained, either under the new patriot anti-terrorism law, or for immigration violations. A handful of active Israeli military were among those detained, according to investigators, who say some of the detainees also failed polygraph questions when asked about alleged surveillance activities against and in the United States."

"Fox News has learned that one group of Israelis, spotted in North Carolina recently, is suspected of keeping an apartment in California to spy on a group of Arabs who the United States is also investigating for links to terrorism. Numerous classified documents obtained by Fox News indicate that even prior to Sept. 11, as many as 140 other Israelis had been detained or arrested in a secretive and sprawling investigation into suspected espionage by Israelis in the United States." - Carl Cameron investigated Israeli Spy Rings in the USA.
A German newspaper Die Zeit also reported on the Israeli spy ring that was following a number of the 9.11 hijackers around the USA. They also claim that the Mossad spy ring informed the USA about the terrorists and the planned attacks but that the warnings were ignored.

"According to a report of the French intelligence agency that Die Zeit examined, “according to the FBI, Arab terrorists and suspected terror cells lived in Phoenix, Arizona, as well as in Miami and Hollywood, Florida from December 2000 to April 2001 in direct proximity to the Israeli spy cells.”

"According to the report, the Mossad agents were interested in the leader of the terrorists, Mohammed Atta and his key accomplice, Marwan al-Shehi. Both lived in Hamburg before they settled in Hollywood, Florida in order to plan the attacks. A Mossad team was also operating in the same town. The leader, Hanan Serfati, had rented several dwellings. “One of Serfati’s apartments was located on the corner of 701st St. and 21st Ave. [sic] in Hollywood, right near the apartment of Atta and al-Shehi.”, French intelligence reported later. Everything indicates that the terrorists were constantly observed by the Israelis. The chief Israeli agent was staying right near the post office where the terrorists had a mailbox. The Mossad also had its sights on Atta’s accomplice Khalid al-Midhar, with whom the CIA was also familiar, but allowed to run free. The Mossad apparently warned their American counterparts several times about the terrorists, especially about al-Midhar. The American government later admitted that they had received such warnings prior to September 11." - Die Zeit, October 14th 2002
So not only did the Americans and Israeli's know about the 9.11 hijackers whereabouts but they were being closely monitored. One only has to read up on the ABLE Danger program to realise how much foreknowledge the US government had about the terror plot which makes one wonder with all this information why it wasn't stopped before hand.

The 9.11 attacks relied on so much co-incidence and luck that I call it the biggest co-incidence theory in world history.

Not only were the hijackers lucky to take over four planes with rudimentary weapons but they managed to get on the flights even though many were known to the authorities. They also managed to expertly fly these huge planes perfectly into their targets, even supposedly managing to break known laws of physics by getting a Boeing 757 to fly 400mph a few feet from the ground without crashing first into the first floor of the Pentagon.

They also were so lucky that previously whenever a weak nose of a plane has hit a re-inforced concrete wall the plane has crumbled into dust and the wall remained. However on this day not only did they manage to make a plane punch through 3 re-enforced concrete walls at the Pentagon but they managed to carry out expert manoeuvres that even expert pilots claim couldn't be made.

That's not even mentioning the fact that they were lucky enough to carry out their attacks on a day that NORAD was carrying out pretend hijacking exercises which confused air traffic control and prevented planes being flown to stop the hijacked planes. Not only that but they were lucky enough to cause 3 high towered sky scrapers to explode into dust by only hitting two of their targets.

Therefore the hijackers were very, very lucky that they managed to have everything go their way on 9.11!

So it seems the west has been in close links with al-Qaeda all the way up to 9.11, but what about after? Haven't we been fighting them in Afghanistan and Iraq for the past 10 years?

Well supposedly, but a news story by Tony Capaccio from Bloomberg News refers to a report to Congress by the Special Inspector for Afghan Reconstruction John Sopko. This report revealed that Sopko asked the US Army Suspension and Disbarment office to cancel 43 contracts to known Al Qaeda and Taliban supporters. They refused. The reason? The Suspension and Disbarment Office claims it would violate Al Qaeda and Taliban “due process rights.”

So not only are we funding our enemy through backhanded methods in Afghanistan but the recent revelations from Libya reveal that the Benghazi attack on the US embassy was really an attack on a CIA front for weapons running to al-Qaeda linked rebels in Syria.

It seems President Obama is ignoring the law - again - and has decided to fund al-Qaeda linked rebels such as the al-Nusra Front who are busy cutting people's heads off, stoning woman and massacring whole villages.
(Reuters) - 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, sources familiar with the matter said.

Obama's order, approved earlier this year and known as an intelligence "finding," broadly permits the CIA and other U.S. agencies to provide support that could help the rebels oust Assad. - Reuters 2012


These rebels are of a similar ilk to those we supported in the other throw of Col. Gaddafi. These rebels are still in control of large quantities of NATO supplied weapons paid for by western tax payers. The leaders of the mish mash of rebel groups in control of Libya now are busy fighting each other, locking up and executing people with dark skin and implementing Sharia law where they can. We really helped to modernise Libya with that bold move and it's not as if they are even that grateful.

We have had British World War cemeteries destroyed by Islamic fundamentalists and the US ambassador Chris Stevens was murdered in an attack by jihadists not long back.

Senseless: A man kicks down headstones of soldiers Senseless: A man kicks down headstones of 150 British servicemen killed in North Africa 70 years ago

Even the rebels at the time admitted they were being supported by al-Qaeda and had no problem with their brand of extremism

The Daily Telegraph ran a recent story in which an interview with the leader of the rebel army we are supporting in Libya‘s civil war admitted that he had recruited al-Qaeda fighters and called them not terrorists but good Muslims.
Mr al-Hasidi insisted his fighters “are patriots and good Muslims, not terrorists,” but added that the “members of al-Qaeda are also good Muslims and are fighting against the invader”.
Al-Qaeda’s own leaders even released statements in support of the rebels and also called for the other throw of Gaddafi who they felt was an obstacle to their ideal Islamic Caliphate.

It seems after Libya the rebels have flocked to Syria and whilst we debate arming these jihadists they are busy killing Christians, eating lungs and hearts on film and beheading everyone they can get their hands on.

Just one of the recent massacres involved over 120 children and 330 men and women who were massacred by the al-Nusra Front in the town of Tal Abyad.

Al Nusra Mercenaries in Syria Slaughter Kurdish Women and Children kurdkids

And this isn't the only massacre carried out by the anti-Assad forces we are so keen to back at any cost.

Earlier this year another massacre was filmed and showed Rebel Free Syrian Army (FSA) fighters capture a policeman who the FSA allege is a “Shabiha” or pro-regime militiaman, on July 31, 2012, as the rebels overran a police station in Aleppo.

The footage shows several bloodied men stripped down to their underwear being forced to kneel by a wall amidst a throng of excited, machine gun-touting men.

Once their captors open fire, the camera jerks away as the crowd momentarily disperses, seemingly unprepared for the nearly 40 seconds of uninterrupted shooting that follows. As the gunfire dies down, shouts of “Allahu Akbar!” resound as the once skittish onlookers victoriously raise their guns in the air, approaching what appears to be a pile of stripped-down corpses.

One of the victims has been identified as Ali Zein Al-Abidin Al-barri; the rebels accused him and his family of killing 15 FSA soldiers during a truce in Aleppo.

The rebels are certainly not afraid of using terrorism as a tactic in Syria. Not only have they massacred whole villages but they are not afraid of using huge Iraqi style car bombs to kill as many innocent people as possible.

Earlier this year the Free Syrian Army (supposedly moderate when compared to al-Nusra Front) admitted carrying out a car bombing attack in Damascus which killed the president's defence minister, brother-in-law and the head of his crisis team whilst meeting at the national security headquarters.

From the BBC News Site:
“The president’s defence minister, brother-in-law and head of his crisis team were at a meeting at national security headquarters in Damascus…”

“The rebel Free Syrian Army (FSA) and a jihadist group calling itself Lord of the Martyrs Brigade both said they were behind the security headquarters bombing.”

“Security sources say the suspected bomber worked as a bodyguard for members of President Bashar al-Assad’s inner circle.”


As I have written on many occasions since we started our latest round of wars in the Middle East it seems very strange that we declare al-Qaeda to be our mortal enemy and spill our own soldiers blood and guts fighting them in certain parts of the world yet fund and arm them in countries we want to other throw such as Libya and Syria.

Not only are we basically supporting our own enemy because of "realpolitik" but it seems we have no moral line in the sand at all.

How can we declare al-Qaeda to be such an evil, all-powerful terrorist group, one in which we must lay down our civil liberties by the bucket load to defeat on one hand and yet support them and their offshoots on the other because they are fighting another one of our enemies?

It really does seem that the saying, the enemy of my enemy is my friend in this case and history shows that al-Qaeda is a lot more than just our enemy. In fact from the very beginning it seems they were created as our own group of Jihadists to be let off the leash whenever we want to de-stabilise an area or cause panic at home.

Want to implement a new liberty destroying law such as the PATRIOT ACT or the NDAA, then let's get one of our patsies to get on a plane with a bomb in his pants. Oh he's on a no-fly list, don't worry we will just usher him through passport control and give him entry to the USA so that we can arrest him in a blaze of glory and scare everyone witless during Christmas.

It is very clear our political leaders have the moral backbone of jellyfish and their duplicity is beyond comprehension.

Therefore when we hear stories about huge chemical weapon stashes found in rebels homes in Turkey, or our very own UN inspector claims that the only signs of chemical Weapon use are by the rebels we should pay notice.

It should also be noted that the use of Chemical weapons was the "red line" Obama was willing to engage in the Syrian conflict if crossed. The problem seems to be that the line was crossed by our own side not President Assad.

A recent independent UN investigation into the use of chemical weapons suggests that the attack was carried out by Syrian rebels NOT the forces of President Assad.

Also hacked emails from defense contractor Britam reveal a plan apparently “approved byWashington” and funded by Qatar to stage a chemical weapons attack in Syria and blame it on the Assad regime.

And recently the Turkish security forces found a 2 kg cylinder filled with sarin gas after searching the homes of Al-Nusra Syrian militants who are linked to Al-Qaeda.

So lets all be clear here as I summarise the points.

  1. al-Qaeda was created by the CIA to fight the USSR in Afghanistan.
  2. After the war we used al-Qaeda to fight the Russians in Chechnya and the Serbs in Kosovo.
  3. British intelligence not only harboured al-Qaeda linked terrorists but funded them to carry out illegal assasination plots in Libya.
  4. The first Interpol warrant issued for bin-Laden was ignored by western intelligence and bin-Laden was allowed to escape.
  5. A well placed whistleblower, ex FBI agent Sibel Edmonds, claims the USA had intimate ties with al-Qaeda and bin-Laden right up to 9.11. Apparently they were used to fight proxy wars and to destabilise areas which the US had an interest in.
  6. Even the 9.11 hijackers were monitored by Mossad spies, the US was warned about their plans, ABLE Danger had identified them but for some reason no action was taken.
  7. 9.11 was then used to justify the war on terror which has led to over a decade of war, the massive loss of liberties at home and the rise of the surveillance state. All under the auspices of protecting us from terrorism.
  8. The risk of death from terrorism is minimal. You are 11,000 times more likely to die from a plane crash than you are from a terrorist attack.
  9. Even though we are supposedly fighting al-Qaeda in Afghanistan we are at the same time funding the Taliban through re-construction programs.
  10. We have recently armed and fought alongside al-Qaeda linked rebels to other throw Col. Gaddafi in Libya. Libya is now in a mess and run by Sharia law imposing rebels. Before our intervention Libya was one of the richest, healthiest and educated populations in Africa.
  11. We are now funding and arming Syrian rebels that are linked to al-Qaeda. These rebels have been taped on numerous occasions beheading people, eating the lungs and hearts of victims, executing captured soldiers and massacring whole villages.
  12. Even though President Assad is a dictator during his reign he has modernised the country and Christians and Muslims lived side by side in peace. Now the Islamic fundamentalists are killing Christians, using chemical weapons and imposing Sharia law.
  13. Just like in Libya these terrorists are not likely to hand back any guns, rocket launchers and other weapons we provide them. It is more likely they will be used against Europeans and Americans in terrorist attacks.
  14. It is also likely that any further terrorist attacks will be used to impose more draconian police state laws and Internet surveillance.


Here are some video's which show the type of people we are supporting in our "war of terror".







View the original article Oh look, America is funding al-Qaeda after all at darkpolitricks.com.