Uncategorized

U.S. Supported Chechen Terrorists – BlackListedNews.com

http://blacklistednews.com/

U.S. Supported Chechen Terrorists

Source: Washington’s Blog

It’s extensively documented that U.S. backing of Al Qaeda led to 9/11, and that the U.S. is the world’slargest sponsor of terror.

Former FBI agent Colleen Rowley – a 2002 Time Person of the Yearpoints out that the neocons also backed Chechen terrorists as a way to challenge Russia:

Chechen “terrorists” proved useful to the U.S. in keeping pressure on the Russians, much as the Afghan mujahedeen were used in the anti-Soviet war in Afghanistan from 1980 to 1989. In fact, many neocons signed up as Chechnya’s “friends,” including former CIA Director James Woolsey.

***

For instance, see this 2004 article in the UK Guardian, entitled, “The Chechens’ American friends: The Washington neocons’ commitment to the war on terror evaporates in Chechnya, whose cause they have made their own.”

Author John Laughland wrote: “the leading group which pleads the Chechen cause is the American Committee for Peace in Chechnya (ACPC). The list of the self-styled ‘distinguished Americans’ who are its members is a roll call of the most prominent neoconservatives who so enthusiastically support the ‘war on terror.’

“They include Richard Perle, the notorious Pentagon adviser; Elliott Abrams of Iran-Contra fame; Kenneth Adelman, the former US ambassador to the UN who egged on the invasion of Iraq by predicting it would be ‘a cakewalk’; Midge Decter, biographer of Donald Rumsfeld and a director of the rightwing Heritage Foundation; Frank Gaffney of the militarist Centre for Security Policy; Bruce Jackson, former US military intelligence officer and one-time vice-president of Lockheed Martin, now president of the US Committee on Nato; Michael Ledeen of the American Enterprise Institute, a former admirer of Italian fascism and now a leading proponent of regime change in Iran; and R. James Woolsey, the former CIA director who is one of the leading cheerleaders behind George Bush’s plans to re-model the Muslim world along pro-US lines.”

***

Prominent former New York Times journalist (and author of The Commission book) Phil Shenon’s discovery of the incredible “Terrible Missed Chance” a couple of years ago.

Shenon’s discovery involved key information that the FBI and the entire “intelligence” community mishandled and covered up, not only before 9/11 but for a decade afterward. And it also related to the exact point of my 2002 “whistleblower memo” that led to the post 9/11 DOJ-Inspector General investigation about FBI failures and also partially helped launch the 9/11 Commission investigation.

But still the full truth did not come out, even after Shenon’s blockbuster discovery in 2011 of the April 2001 memo linking the main Chechen leader Ibn al Khattab to Osama bin Laden. The buried April 2001 memo had been addressed to FBI Director Louis Freeh (another illegal recipient of MEK money, by the way!) and also to eight of the FBI’s top counter-terrorism officials.

Similar memos must have been widely shared with all U.S. intelligence in April 2001. Within days of terrorist suspect Zaccarias Moussaoui’s arrest in Minnesota on Aug. 16, 2001, French intelligence confirmed that Moussaoui had been fighting under and recruiting for Ibn al-Khattab, raising concerns about Moussaoui’s flight training.

Yet FBI Headquarters officials balked at allowing a search of his laptop and other property, still refusing to recognize that: 1) the Chechen separatists were themselves a “terrorist group” for purposes of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act’s (FISA) legal requirement of acting “on behalf of a foreign power” and 2) that Moussaoui’s link to Ibn al Khattab inherently then linked him to bin Laden’s well-recognized Al Qaeda group for purposes of FISA (the point in my memo).

This all occurred during the same time that CIA Director George Tenet and other counter-terrorism officials — and don’t forget that Tenet was apprised of the information about Moussaoui’s arrest around Aug. 24, 2001 — told us their “hair was on fire” over the prospect of a major terrorist attack and “the system was blinking red.”

The post 9/11 investigations launched as a result of my 2002 “whistleblower memo” did conclude that a major mistake, which could have prevented or reduced 9/11, was the lack of recognition of al Khattab’s Chechen fighters as a “terrorist group” for purposes of FISA.

***

Officials can get confused when their former covert “assets” turn into enemies themselves. That’s what has happened with al-Qaeda-linked jihadists in Libya and Syria, fighters who the U.S. government favored in their efforts to topple the Qaddafi and Assad regimes, respectively. These extremists are prone to turn against their American arms suppliers and handlers once the common enemy is defeated.

The same MO exists with the U.S. and Israel currently collaborating with the Iranian MEK terrorists who have committed assassinations inside Iran. The U.S. government has recently shifted the MEK terrorists from the ranks of “bad” to “good” terrorists as part of a broader campaign to undermine the Iranian government. For details, see “Our (New) Terrorists, the MEK: Have We Seen This Movie Before?”

***

the lies and disinformation that go into the confusing and ever-morphing notion of “terrorism” result from the U.S. Military Industrial Complex (and its little brother, the “National Security Surveillance Complex”) and their need to control the mainstream media’s framing of the story.

So, a simplistic narrative/myth is put forth to sustain U.S. wars. From time to time, those details need to be reworked and some of the facts “forgotten” to maintain the storyline about bad terrorists “who hate the U.S.” when, in reality, the U.S. Government may have nurtured the same forces as “freedom fighters” against various “enemies.”

The bottom line is to never forget that “a poor man’s war is terrorism while a rich man’s terrorism is war” – and sometimes those lines cross for the purposes of big-power politics. War and terrorism seem to work in sync that way.

(And read this post from Sibel Edmonds, former FBI translator, who the Department of Justice’s Inspector General and several senators have called extremely credible.)

Was the Boston terror attack yet more blowback from idiotic U.S. foreign policy?

Given that we have recently backed Al Qaeda terrorists in Libya, Syria and elsewhere, the idiocy continues …

Postscript: We do not know what the true facts of the Boston bombing are. Not only are thee confusing and contradictory facts, but – as Yves Smith points out – there’s not yet even an “official” story.

Uncategorized

Many Bostonians Love And Worship The Miltiarized Police State – BlackListedNews.com

http://blacklistednews.com/

Many Bostonians Love And Worship The Miltiarized Police State

following the implementation of a full blown militarized police state in and around Boston. These mindless sheep were cheering the suspect’s capture despite the fact that the FBI and local police forces have still failed to produce any concrete evidence proving that either of the two suspects planted the bombs.
in the name of capturing a single 19 year old young man.

It is a documented fact that these militarized police forces conducted warrantless unconstitutional door to door searches and restricted travel for no justifiable reason. These types of warrantless searches are a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures. The actions taken by Governor Deval Patrick and the militarized police goons were unlawful according to the supreme law of the land and a misuse of government resources. Even after conducting these unlawful searches for hours on end the storm troopers still failed to find the suspect that they were looking for. Once the so-called lock down was lifted the suspect was found minutes later by a man who saw something suspicious near his boat after he was allowed to leave his home. If these idiots didn’t roll out full blown martial law throughout the area and simply asked for the public’s help in locating this person, the suspect would have been found much sooner. This is just one reason why it is disgusting to see how so many brainwashed robots were cheering the police forces who conducted these illegal operations.

The state of martial law in and around Boston undoubtedly resulted in a tremendous amount of revenue lost for businesses in and around the area. Of course the stooges in the corporate media won’t talk about that or the legality and the wisdom of such a boneheaded operation. The reason they won’t is because the roll out of a militarized police force in the name of safety and security is now an accepted norm in America.

People just don’t seem to understand that operations like these do not guarantee your safety or security. As I’ve pointed out in previous articles covering the Boston Marathon bombing, there was a huge police presence at the Boston Marathon. Despite the vast number of police and security forces, they still failed to prevent the bombing. When one understands that the government has a historical track record of staging attacks like these in order to justify different agendas, it makes perfect sense as to why all of these security forces couldn’t prevent the attack. However, if we were to assume that this was a real attack that wasn’t sanctioned by official channels, this was a huge police failure. Of course we don’t see anybody in the media questioning the failure of the police to keep people safe do we? Instead, we see talking head propagandists calling for more police, more security, more searches, more cameras and other assorted bull shit.

What we are witnessing is similar to what we saw after the September 11th attacks when the corporate media failed to scrutinize the obvious incompetence of military officers who failed in their duty to protect the country. Instead, many of those people who displayed gross incompetence in dealing with the September 11th attacks were given promotions. Undoubtedly this was done to keep these people happy and discourage them from blowing the whistle on the countless anomalies that occurred that day.

The bombings have also presented new opportunities for re-emphasizing the worship of the militarized police state at professional sporting events. Worshipping members of the military and police at baseball games, football games and other breads and circus spectacles has become a quasi-religious experience for people ever since the September 11th attacks. We were able to witness this in full force at the recent Boston Red Sox game at Fenway Park that took place following the capture of the 2nd suspect. A pre-game ceremony remembering the victims of the Boston Marathon bombing included a video presentation combining sappy music with images of American flags and police. Not surprisingly, the presentation drew a pavlovian like reaction of cheers and applause from the fans.

showing the actions of SWAT teams forcing families out of their homes without any warrants or probable cause have been posted all over different video sharing web sites.
reporting on the specifics of the unlawful searches including how they were breaking into people’s homes.

The worship of police officers and members of the military being portrayed as heroic figures has become a national mental illness perpetuated by exaggerated media propaganda and fear mongering. Even though there might be a few good police officers who do their job and uphold civil liberties, there are far too many cases of the police abusing their authority and engaging in an assortment of illegal activities. Many police officers are nothing more than common criminals who enjoy bullying people around. People in third world countries already have a general understanding that the police are corrupt and shouldn’t be trusted but unfortunately it looks like most Americans haven’t quite grasped this concept yet.

Uncategorized

Big Brother Is Smiling: Congress Sells Your Privacy For A Cool $84 Million – BlackListedNews.com

http://blacklistednews.com/

Big Brother Is Smiling: Congress Sells Your Privacy For A Cool $84 Million

Spy

In case you were wondering why so many Democrats switched sides during the most recent CISPA vote, the answer is exactly what you think it is: $$$. And lots of it. Last year’s CISPA vote only managed to secure 40 Democrat supporters. This time around, the number leapt to 92.

[A] new coalition of special interests, which include America’s two largest cellular service providers AT&T, Inc. and Verizon Wireless — jointly owned by Verizon Communications Inc. and Vodafone Group Plc. — as well as two of the nation’s largest software firms Microsoft Corp. and Intel Corp., came together to create a similar data grab bill (Microsoft has since renounced its support). Security firms like Symantec Corp. also backed the bill.

Pushing the bill through was $84M USD in funding from special interest backers.

$84 million is change-of-heart money, although one imagines those contributing checked and double-checked their “sponsored” representatives to make sure they were all on the same page. As DailyTech points out, nearly $86 million went into the SOPA push and most of that turned out to be wasted money.

Last Monday, two hundred IBM executives visited the White House to make a last minute push for CISPA. Whatever they said or did must have been very persuasive. By the end of the day, 36 new sponsors had signed on to the bill, up from a very lonely two previous to IBM’s visit. Unsurprisingly, financial motivation was involved, according to numbers gathered by Maplight.

New co-sponsors have received 38 times as much money ($7,626,081) from interests supporting CISPA than from interests opposing ($200,362).

Members of the House in total have received 16 times as much money ($67,665,694) from interests supporting CISPA than from interests opposing ($4,164,596).

Now, it’s up to Senate to come up with some sort of cyber-security bill that has a chance to get passed and dodge a Presidential veto. Fortunately, there’s no clear favorite at the moment (although Lieberman’s bill seems to have the President’s blessing) and with the limited number of voters, the Senate is much more prone to be gridlocked by partisan politics. Of course, a daylong visit by a few lobbyists could win over just enough hearts and minds to be dangerous. In the meantime, it would probably do these senators a world of good to hear from their constituents, if only to remind them that there are plenty of actual people out there who have to live with the consequences of bad legislation.

Uncategorized

Media magic: not one angry person in Boston | Jon Rappoport’s Blog

http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2013/04/22/media-magic-not-one-angry-person-in-boston/

Media magic: not one angry person in Boston

Media magic: not one angry person in Boston

by Jon Rappoport

April 22, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

Shocked? Horrified? Grief-stricken? Determined? Yes, Boston residents who voiced those feelings passed through the media filters and were interviewed on camera.

But angry? Deeply angry at what happened at the Marathon and ready to give vent to it? The screeners took a pass.

I wrote about this subject after the Sandy Hook murders, and it applies to the Aurora massacre as well.

The sober sepulchral tones of media anchors, and their extreme deference to FBI, police, and politicians, form a hypnotic induction for viewers…and these leaders don’t want to break the spell, which is exactly what anger does.

Therefore, it’s a no-go.

Anger is a spark that fires up and spreads. So dampen it. Ignore it. Don’t show it on television news. Instead, say this: “Step back, everybody, huddle in your homes, let the pros do their job, they’ll catch the killers, look at the photos they want you to look at, remain calm, depend on designated officials.”

This is the new American dream.

If you don’t show anger on the television news, it doesn’t exist. Out of sight, out of mind.

Then, once in a while, media can point to an angry group they want to defame: “See, look at those people. They’re angry. They’re the only people who are. So there must be something wrong with them. They’re dangerous. What they stand for must be a threat to all the rest of us…because they’re angry.”

Suppose, right after the killings in Boston, the major networks interviewed 50 people who were in a rage. Viewers would start to wake up. That’s not permitted.

This engineered absence of anger dovetails perfectly with the “have a nice day” philosophy. It’s all about “thinking positive thoughts” and immediately lapsing into a passive invisible state.

A culture of “anger-is-destructive” has made enormous inroads on American life. We even have so-called experts issuing phony statements about the deleterious physical effects of “negative emotions.”

This is preposterous idiocy, at best. The key distinction here is between mindless outrage and anger directed at those who deserve to be exposed for their crimes. It’s also a distinction between bottling up, out of naked fear, such specifically directed outrage, and expressing it.

Unless you believe the American Revolution was fought by smiling troops who strolled into battle like glazed donuts sporting muskets.

Read Tom Paine’s Common Sense, the pamphlet that shook the Colonies and forced the Declaration of Independence. If you see no anger there, you’re dead.

In these modern massacre ops, the media formula works like this: “See, the perpetrators were brought to justice; it worked; the citizenry was kept in the background; nothing negative was expressed; and all’s well that ends well.”

Keeping citizen anger off the front pages and off the television-news screens is a purposeful pose. It’s really an emotional lockdown of the country.

The police not only act as an armed physical surrogate for the people, they also effect an emotional transfer. “You folks don’t have to get angry, give us your feelings, we’ll do the job, and we never hate. We’re efficient.”

This contributes mightily to the sense that we’re living in a land of androids.

Television is the universal teacher Communities and cities learn how to react, should a crisis suddenly descend on them, from having watched how it worked in other places—as television showed it, as television selected it.

“This is how you’re supposed to feel, this is when you feel it, this is the sequence, these are the words you use.”

In this artificial ballet, the last people who are going to doubt the law-enforcement bosses are those who learn from television.

The rule of television coverage operates in another way as well. Suspects in these massacres, if they survive, rarely if ever speak before cameras to a national and world audience, before trial.

The police don’t permit it, and if they did, a defendant’s attorney wouldn’t allow it, on the grounds that prosecutors could use his client’s statements against him in the courtroom. So the accused are buffered off from the public, kept in a tight cocoon.

This contributes to an overall air of extreme caution. The wheels of the machine are grinding; no humans appear to be present. The only officials who speak before cameras are trained to emit bureaucratic blather.

The public accepts this. They buy the presentation—idiot pseudo-scientists using techno-speak to analyze some species of insect, while also throwing off gaseous generalities about the nation, the life of communities, and the coming together of good citizens.

From the earliest days of television, the vaunted anchors who shaped the role for later generations—Ed Murrow, Chet Huntley, David Brinkley, Walter Cronkite—gods to the American audience—affected the air of a reformed drunk who was always walking close to the edge of doom and needed to enunciate his concerns carefully, lest he fall into a pit of actual human experience where he would drown.

This became the rhythm, sound, and tempo of truth.

Now, Brian Williams, and Scott Pelley, the keepers of that flame, are practicing in the same school of understatement, are doing their slow tap dance around the rim of the cliff, assuring viewers they are taking them as far as humans can go without encountering details too sordid for civilized exposure.

Among those omissions are the words and outraged feelings of citizens who demand justice and know there is a great con in progress, a charade.

The lesson was learned in 1963. After that piece of television coverage, the monarchs of media struck out on a different path. Americans actually saw Lee Harvey Oswald, after he was arrested. They saw his anger. They saw him say, “I’m just a patsy.” They saw his disgust and growing hour-by-hour understanding that he was going to his end. They saw he knew he was going to be swallowed up and disappeared. And finally they saw Jack Ruby shoot him in an underground garage.

Guilty or innocent, Oswald transmitted a disquiet that was corrosive to the public consciousness. That had to stop.

Television could not do this anymore. It was too strong, too real. No one individual could come across that way again.

The government and its media machine would have to build a castle and surround it with armed force in layers of protection. It would have to develop a new kind of language to pretend to a humanity that was on the way out.

That’s what they did, and it worked. It worked, at bottom, because it created a new audience that came to expect and demand three-dollar bills, one after another, standing in for the real thing.

In some humans, when you open their souls, you see fierce joy, oceanic energy and imagination. In others, you see dust, and a machinery that pretends to these things.

Knowing the difference makes all the difference in the world. The dust-and-machine people can voice the highest ideals and thoughts, but it’s all prerecorded.

Like media.

Especially when it’s live.

I’m sick in my heart

But I’m not a fool anymore,

I know the charade is over.

The schemers and liars brought us to this house

In the middle of the night

And told us what the world was.

I’m sick in my heart

But I’m not a fool anymore,

I know the charade is over.

The sellers and the buyers brought us to our knees,

But this is the end of the trance

That told us what the world was.

Between the clouds, the moon comes,

Between the clouds, the moon races,

New boiling rivers rush down from the mountains again.”

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com

About these ads

Like this:

Like Loading…

April 22, 2013 Leave a reply