Palestinians Cheering on 9/11

As far as I can tell, there is only one video that shows Muslims "cheering" on 9/11... and it is fairly suspect.

At best, there are like 12 people cheering in this film, certainly not everyone there. There's no way to know the time or date or even the year. Then there's the cake being offered to the woman who is most obviously focused on.

But this one 40 second video was shown on all the major news networks on 9/11. What was the provenance of this video clip? Who decided that it should be shown? How did it get on every network?

And let's not forget that Netanyahu was on TV on 9/11 saying how the attacks were very good for Israel.

... and yeah, there's a ton of links between Israel and 9/11.

Huxley Versus Orwell-- Huxley Was Right

A fascinating comparison:

I can't seem to post the hi-res image here, but you can see it here.

Also see this: Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business

Happy Thanksgiving

At least WWIII hasn't started quite yet....

Donald Trump Claims Muslims in New Jersey Were Cheering on 9/11

I think he's thinking of the 5 dancing Israelis.

Killtown has a long compilation of stories on the Israelis.

Dave McGowan Died Yesterday on 11-22-15

Although he was not known for JFK research, still a good date for a conspiracy researcher to go, if you have to go.

McGowan was one of the better conspiracy researchers in this sad fucked up world we live in.

RIP

On This 52nd Anniversary of the JFK Assassination

It's actually very clear that the CIA was deeply involved in the hit. It's also beyond obvious that the corporate media will never admit the truth about the JFK assassination, and will forever ignore the overwhelming evidence of a CIA conspiracy.

AMY GOODMAN: Who do you think killed John Kennedy? 

DAVID TALBOT: Well, I believe what Robert Kennedy believed. Robert Kennedy, as I showed in my book earlier, Brothers, and in this book, looked immediately at the killing team that was put together by the CIA to kill Fidel Castro. That CIA killing team, I think, was responsible for killing President Kennedy, as well. That team that was killing foreign leaders, that was targeting foreign leaders, that Dulles had assembled, including men like William Harvey, Howard Hunt, David Morales—these were all key figures of suspicion by Congress during the House Assassinations Committee investigation in the ’70s. That was the team that was brought to Dallas. I now identify those men. A couple of them admitted—Howard Hunt, on his death bed, admitted that he was involved in the Kennedy assassination, and the mainstream media completely overlooked this shocking— 

AMY GOODMAN: Howard Hunt, who was Watergate. 

DAVID TALBOT: He was the leader of the Watergate break-in and a legendary CIA action officer, and very close to Allen Dulles, revered Allen Dulles. On his death bed, he revealed that he was part of that plot. Again, 60 Minutes looked at it and then walked away. I know a lot about this story. But the media has been, I think, shockingly remiss in not looking into this investigation. It’s a taboo subject. But it’s clear—I think I present overwhelming evidence that Allen Dulles was complicit in this, in the assassination of the president. And he conveniently ran the investigation into the president’s murder, because he strong-armed President Johnson into appointing him to the Warren Commission, where he became the dominant figure.

An excerpt from a long excerpt from David Talbot's book on Allen Dulles:

In August 1978, as the House Select Committee on Assassinations entered the final stage of its probe, a former CIA official named Victor Marchetti published an eye-opening article in The Spotlight, a magazine put out by the right-wing Liberty Lobby whose pages often reflected the noxious views of the group’s eccentric founder, Willis Carto. Marchetti wrote that CIA officials had decided that if the assassinations committee crept too close to the truth, the agency was prepared to scapegoat Hunt and some of his sidekicks, such as Sturgis. “[Hunt’s] luck has run out, and the CIA has decided to sacrifice him to protect its clandestine services,” Marchetti wrote. “The agency is furious with Hunt for having dragged it publicly into the Nixon mess and for having blackmailed it after he was arrested. Besides, Hunt is vulnerable—an easy target as they say in the spy business. His reputation and integrity have been destroyed. . . . 

In the public hearings, the CIA will ‘admit’ that Hunt was involved in the conspiracy to kill Kennedy. The CIA may go so far as to ‘admit’ that there were three gunmen shooting at Kennedy.” Marchetti described this CIA plan as a classic “limited hangout” strategy—spy jargon for releasing some of the hidden facts, in order to distract the public from bigger, more explosive information. While The Spotlight was a sketchy publication, Marchetti himself had credibility. A former Soviet military specialist for the CIA, he had risen to become a special assistant to Helms before resigning in 1969 over disagreements with agency policy. In 1973, Marchetti wrote a critique of the agency, The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence, which the agency forced his publisher, Alfred A. Knopf, to heavily censor. But Marchetti remained a CIA loyalist at heart, and he retained strong ties to the agency. 

In the ensuing uproar over the Spotlight article, Hunt sued for defamation of character, insisting that he had nothing to do with the Kennedy assassination, but he ultimately lost his court case. The Liberty Lobby’s attorney, famed JFK researcher Mark Lane, succeeded in convincing the jury that Hunt might indeed have been in Dallas, as his own son came to believe. During the trial, Lane uncovered the surprising identities of Marchetti’s sources: Jim Angleton and William Corson, a former Marine officer who had served with Dulles’s son in Korea and later worked for the spymaster. Marchetti was clearly a conduit for the deep rumblings from within Langley. His article was a fascinating window into the CIA’s organizational psychology during a period of the agency’s greatest distress. 

Marchetti himself was troubled by the unanswered questions swirling around the Kennedy assassination. “This is a thing in my mind that is not 100 percent certain—there is that two to three percent that remains open,” he said. And much of Marchetti’s suspicion focused on Hunt. “He might have been down there [in Dallas] for some other reason, but . . . who knows?” Some of the evidence about Hunt that came out during the Liberty Lobby trial, added Marchetti, “was just very, very strange.” As the CIA prepared its “limited hangout” strategy on the Kennedy assassination, Hunt was not the only officer considered “expendable” by the agency. 

Bill Harvey, too, felt that he was being hung out to dry when he was subpoenaed by the Church Committee to testify about the CIA’s assassination plots against foreign leaders. Word circulated in Washington that Harvey had gone “rogue.” Like Kurtz in Heart of Darkness, it was whispered, he had gone off the rails during his exploits in the espionage wilderness—his thinking had become unsound. Harvey was very familiar with the CIA’s character assassination machinery, and he now found himself a target of it: he had never been one of the Fifth Avenue cowboys, and now they were turning on him. Long after he was gone, Harvey’s family still resented the CIA high command for how they had treated him. They “threw him under the bus,” in the words of his daughter, Sally.

Deja Vu, All Over Again

So, now they come out saying the Paris attackers were known to authorities, on watch lists, had done extensive travels to Syria.  So tired of this shit.

This is kind of interesting though-- hotel rooms where the suicide bombers stayed had syringes, witnesses described zombie-like state of attackers. So, they were drugged to carry out the attacks? Why didn't they just pray, if they were so religious?

... and then, "Hours Before the Terror Attacks, Paris Practiced for a Mass Shooting".  Just routine drills, of course.

Before these stories was the obligatory call for taking away more privacy from citizens. Can't have encrypted calls, you know.



Asshole alert:

Pressure is rising on Apple, Google and other technology companies to allow law enforcement and intelligence agencies access to encrypted phones and other devices. In the wake of the coordinated terrorist attacks on Paris, CIA Director John Brennan, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and other critics are amplifying their arguments against Silicon Valley. The rise of commercial encryption technology, they say, risks shielding terrorists from surveillance — raising the bar for law enforcement to thwart future attacks. “We in many respects have gone blind as a result of the commercialization and the selling of devices that cannot be accessed either by the manufacturer or, more importantly, by us in law enforcement, even equipped with the search warrants and judicial authority,” New York City Police Commissioner William Bratton said Sunday on “Face the Nation.” Some lawmakers have revived calls for congressionally mandated access to devices. “In the Senate Armed Services, we’re going to have hearings on it and we’re going to have legislation,” Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who chairs the committee, told reporters on Tuesday, calling the status quo “unacceptable.”

Who Benefits from the Paris Attacks?

Psychopaths of any faith who enjoy killing, death and destruction

The war machine of western countries

Intelligence agencies (wanting new powers)

Weapons manufacturers

Bankers

The corporate media

Terror groups

Right-wing and right-leaning and war-mongering politicians

Israel (more sympathy for dealing with their Muslim "problem", attention diverted from the recent uprisings and killings)

33 of the Day

Raytheon stock is up 3.3%, and reaches a 52 week high.

Booya.

Paris Attacks

I'm still having trouble finding any real info about the attacks, and I guess who was behind it is still being sorted out (or the officially story being written).  The DailyMail has some details on the attacks, which are typically sensationalist, but more than I can find elsewhere.

But my default position is it was at minimum, facilitated by a government, either France, or Israel, or both. If there were bona fide suicide bombers, it's hard to call it a false flag.

The idiotic right-wing is of course, calling for more bombing. But that's obviously a fruitless and counter-productive approach, assuming this is bona fide terrorism. Though more war is what the PTB want.

On the official level, I agree we need to cut off the fucking arms sales and the terrorist bankers and for god's sake, fucking boycott Saudi Arabia.

The "Evil Powers That Be" Are Still Being Evil, and Still in Power

Read it and weep:

KABUL, Afghanistan — A U.S. warplane shot people trying to flee a burning hospital destroyed in airstrikes last month, according to the charity that ran the facility.

"Thirty of our patients and medical staff died [in the bombing]," Doctors Without Borders General Director Christopher Stokes said during a speech in Kabul unveiling a report on the incident. "Some of them lost their limbs and were decapitated in the explosions. Others were shot by the circling gunship while fleeing the burning building."

------------

Despite Israeli-inflicted shootings and injuries to over 200 Palestinian children over a 6-day period earlier this month, the U.S. has promised to boost military aid to the country by at least $1 billion a year to a total of over $4 billion. The announcement comes on the heels of U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry’s meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, both of whom are condemning the Palestinian response to Israeli attacks. In the meantime, the Obama administration has cut humanitarian aid to the Palestinian Authority by $80 million, reducing their annual aid package to $290 million.

According to Haaretz, the U.S. recently pledged an additional $1 billion in aid for Israeli “self-defense,” on top of the $3.1 billion annual aid package Israel already receives from the U.S. Earlier this year, months before the recent violence in Israel and Palestine, the Pentagon proposed sending up to $1.9 billion in arms to the Israeli government, which would include 750 bunker buster bombs, 3,000 hellfire missiles, 250 mid-range air-to-air missiles, and 4,100 glide bombs, according to the Times of Israel.

 --------------

The troop contingent that Obama has ordered [in Syria] amounts to 50 Special Forces personnel. That is hardly going to be a decisive blow to Islamic State militants, even if we believe the official rationale for their deployment. The White House, in its announcement, was at pains to emphasize that the troops would not be in a combat role and would only be acting to “advise and train” Kurdish fighters and others belonging to the little-known Syrian Arab Coalition.

But here is perhaps the significant part of the story. “The move could potentially put the American troops in the cross hairs of Russia,” reports one outlet. Significantly, too, the Pentagon will not be informing the Russian military of the exact whereabouts of its ground personnel. That suggests that the real purpose for Obama sending in the troops is to restrict Russian offensive operations by introducing the risk of bombing American forces.

In effect, the US Special Forces are being used as human shields to protect American regime-change assets on the ground.

These assets include an array of jihadist mercenary brigades, which the US and its allies have invested billions of dollars in for the objective of regime change in Syria. The misnomer of “moderate rebels” belies abundant evidence that the mercenaries include Al Qaeda-linked terror groups, including Islamic State. CIA supplies of anti-tank TOW missiles as well as Toyota jeeps are just a glimpse of the foreign covert-sponsorship.

 Russia’s devastating air campaign over the past month – over 1,600 targets destroyed according to Moscow – has no doubt caused apoplexy in Washington, London, Paris, Ankara, Riyadh and Doha. An urgent stop to their “losses” had to be invoked. But the foreign sponsors can’t say it openly otherwise that gives the game away about their criminal involvement in Syria’s war. This perspective most likely explains the hastily convened “peace conference” in Vienna. US Secretary of State John Kerry’s apparent concern to “stop the bloodshed” does not seem credible as the primary motive. Why the concern now after nearly five years of bloodshed?

------------

Perhaps the most alarming revelation to emerge from the new Bush biography is the elder man’s recollection that while Cheney had been his defence secretary, he had commissioned a study on how many tactical nuclear weapons would be needed to eliminate a division of Saddam Hussein’s Republican Guard.

Apparently the answer was 17, though a more profound conclusion is that Cheney was a more dangerous figure than anyone knew. It adds weight to reporting by Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker that Cheney also contemplated the use of low-yield nuclear bunker-busters against Iran’s underground uranium enrichment facilities. The more we hear about the George W Bush administration, the clearer it becomes that the global damage it wrought could have been even worse.

--------------

Days after tea party republican Matt Bevin shocked the state of Kentucky by winning the election for governor in a landslide despite having been notably behind in every poll, political experts are still trying to figure out what happened. Initially the blame was directed at registered democratics, who appeared to have turned out to vote in historically small numbers. But now numerical evidence is pointing to the possibility that the election may have simply been rigged in favor Bevin.

That’s not an accusation to be made lightly. While an average of all polls in a race on this level is very rarely wrong, and is literally never off by a double digit margin like this, that alone is far from sufficient evidence to suggest that one party may have done something as dire as tampering with the results. However in the case of the Kentucky governor’s election, the initial belief that democrats didn’t show up to vote has been disproven. Democrats did show up to the polls in large numbers, as evidenced by the votes cast for the democratic candidates running for lesser offices such as Attorney General.

--------------

The details are out on the the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and critics say the trade deal is worse than they feared. The TPP’s full text was released Thursday, weeks after the United States and 11 other Pacific Rim nations—a group representing 40 percent of the world’s economy—reached an agreement. Activists around the world have opposed the TPP, warning it will benefit corporations at the expense of health, the environment, free speech and labor rights. Congress now has 90 days to review the TPP before President Obama can ask for an up-or-down vote.

--------------

America's ongoing mistreatment of refugees in modern day concentration camps.

--------------

"The Price We Pay"-- How the "evil powers that be" avoid taxation and must be held accountable.

-------------


Shit is fucked up and bullshit and I need a fucking drink. 

I'm Not Saying Sandy Hook was a Hoax, but...

Check out this talk from a Sandy Hook mom:



It's just really weird. Even saying, ok, she lost her young kid, her story is just weird. She basically seems delusional about some things that happened after her son's death. Obviously it could be that she was emotionally traumatized, and this messed her up. Or could be she's under some weird mind-control. But it's a bizarre talk is all I will say for now.

Coming Full Circle

Israeli military tells Palestinian refugee camp, ‘We will gas you until you die’ 

A shocking video has emerged recording a loud verbal threat from the Israeli military to residents of Aida refugee camp near Bethlehem. As a military jeep rolls down an empty quiet street a threatening voice comes over the loudspeaker “You throw stones and we will hit you with gas until you die.” The words spoken seems almost unfathomable.

Middle East Eye (MEE) reports the video was recorded on October 29 by a youth, 17-year-old Yazan Ikhlayel, on his iPhone. Ikhlayel was at Aida’s community center with a clear view of the road below. As Ikhlayel recorded the scene the jeep slows and then come to a halt as the threats continue. You can begin to see stones being thrown at :28 in the video.

The threat also warns they were holding a person “one of you” and if they didn’t stop throwing stones they would slaughter the person.

Transcript: People of Aida Refugee camp we are the occupation army. You throw stones and we will hit you with gas until you all die. The children, the youth, the old people, you will all die, we won’t leave any of you alive. And we have arrested one of you, he is with us now. We took him from his home and we will slaughter and kill him while you are watch if you keep throwing stones. Go home or we will gas you until you die. Your families, your children, everyone we will kill you. Listen to me, all of you go home, it’s better for you.

The Middle East Eye spoke with Ikhlayel, “The most important thing I want people to see when they watch this video is to realise what the Israeli ‘democracy’ really is”.

Our Endless War on the Bogus Terror Bogeyman Just Got Even Endlessier

... plus, another broken promise from the endless war president Obama.

Read it and weep for the amazingly fucked up mess we are in:

The Obama administration announced on Friday it will send US special forces into Syria, breaking its repeated vow that Barack Obama would not send ground troops into the war-torn country. 

This is the latest in a series of U-turns and broken promises that further cements our Forever War and sets a disturbing precedent for whoever becomes the next US president in 2016. These forces will supposedly be “advising and assisting” rebel armies in the northern Syria who are fighting Isis, including Kurdish forces, while not engaging in direct combat. (Separately on Friday, the prime minister of Turkey, a member of the anti-Isis coalition, threatened to attack the US-backed Kurdish troops, who are believed to be the most effective fighting force against Isis, yet also sworn enemies of the Turkish government.) 

While the administration says they will only be “advising and assisting” we know that the US military has already carried out combat operations inside Syria. “Advise and assist” is the same thing the White House said that our troops would be doing in Iraq, but now the Pentagon is admitting: “We’re in combat” in Iraq as well (and have been for months). 

The White House announcement says nothing about the contingent of CIA-backed rebels within Syria who, in addition to fighting Isis, also are also attacking the Assad regime. It’s unclear how the special forces on the ground will fit into that equation. The administration will likely say they don’t, but how can the public trust them at this point? 

In 2012, Obama unequivocally said he would end the war in Afghanistan, and chided Mitt Romney the Republican nominee for not promising that. In 2013, Obama said: “I will not put American boots on the ground in Syria.” In 2014, Obama said: “We will not be sending US troops back into combat in Iraq”. At this point, all of those promises have been completely broken. 

Worse, the Obama administration has effectively removed the democratic process (and Congress) from any decision making on whether to go to war. We now have ground troops inside Syria without any sort of legal authorization from Congress. Obama explicitly campaigned in 2012 on ending the Afghanistan war, which he has now extended beyond his term. The Obama administration also went into Libya and removed Muammar Gaddafi, despite the House voting against it beforehand. 

The White House, as of today, is still clinging to the preposterous notion that the 2001 Authorization of Military Force against al-Qaida – meant for the war in Afghanistan – gives them the authority to wage indefinite war against Isis (a group that did not exist in 2001) in Syria, whether through airstrikes or, now, forces on the ground. No one denies Isis is barbaric and extremely depraved, or that Bashar al-Assad is a murderer, but it is supposed to be the American public’s decision as to whether we go to war. The administration has changed that calculus. It alone now decides when it goes to war: Congress and the public be damned. 

Many have argued that the legacy of Obama will be as someone who wanted to end our major wars but was stuck by circumstance into prolonging them. The real legacy of Obama will come into focus when a President Trump or a President Cruz (or a President Clinton, the most hawkish of all the candidates) decides to start our next war, and feels absolutely no obligation whatsoever to consult anyone before unleashing our military on one country in the Middle East or another.

There is nothing good to be done by getting the US military more involved in Syria.

NOTHING, except to make more blood-money for the bankers and arms makers.

This even has the potential to turn into a war between the US and Russia, and a nuclear situation.

#USoutofSyria, for fucks sake.

How pathetic is Obama in this? What a freaking disgusting puppet of the military and intelligence machine. And the GOP is hopelessly beyond reason on anything of importance. They rail against spending, yet war is the biggest waste on earth. The American people are also hopelessly disorganized and distracted. Truly depressing. Where is the peace community and where are the peace activists?