9/11 Terrorists

Tweet

We Are Terrorists

As Ramadan begins, more than 100 hunger-strikers in Guantánamo Bay continue their protest. More than 40 of them are being force-fed. A leaked document sets out the military instructions, or standard operating procedure, for force-feeding detainees. In this four-minute film made by Human Rights organisation Reprieve and Bafta award-winning director Asif Kapadia, US actor and rapper Yasiin Bey (formerly known as Mos Def), experiences the procedure.

Warning: some viewers may find these images distressing.


The following brief was found on InfoWars.com

Rapper, actor and activist Yasiin Bey, better known as Mos Def, stars in a short film produced by Human Rights organization Reprieve and Bafta award-winning director Asif Kapadia depicting the brutal Standard Operating Procedure conducted at prisons across America such as Guantanamo Bay, where prisoners are not only coerced into sterilization, but are also subjected to force feeding against their wills, a practice many detainees see as a cruel and unusual form of punishment in line with torture.

Earlier this year, it was reported that at least 100 prisoners at the U.S. prison camp located in Cuba were conducting hunger strike protests meant to convey frustration with their indefinite detainment status.

The closure of Guantanamo Bay was one of the campaign platforms then-junior Senator Obama ran on. In June 2007 he told a crowd in Texas, “We’re going to close Guantanamo. And we’re going to restore habeas corpus… We’re going to lead by example—not just by word but by deed. That’s our vision for the future.”

Also see:

Taxi to the Darkside

Here is a trailer for that feature:




Tweet

25 Reasons the US should not go to war with Syria

#1 It will likely trigger world war III. Iran has threatened to attack israel if the US invades Syria, Russia already has warships there, and China intrinsically sides with Russia.

#2 The war is based on accusation, speculation and a youtube video, with no hard evidence such as chemical compositional analysis provided by any independent body. To risk world war III when doubt remains is risking the human race on a guess. UN says the report on the matter will take another 3 weeks.

#3 The last time there was an accusation of sarin by the Syrian government, the UN found out it was the Syrian rebels who had done it. [1] [2]

#4 The last time there was an accusation of any weapons of mass destruction by the western powers (US, UK, etc) using intelligence, it was wrong. No weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq.

#5 Most of the Syrian rebels are islamic extremists, notably al nusra, who are an al qaeda affiliated group. Supporting them would amount to supporting al qaeda.

#6 John Kerry was wrong in his estimates of the Syrian rebels. If he's wrong on this fundamental point - as the US secretary of state - what else is he wrong on regards to this? (Hypocrisy: John Kerry was an anti-war activist.)

#7 It's unpopular in the eyes of the American public. And would result in impeachment, possibly even rioting.

#8 The US in an economic debt of $16 trillion dollars! Each tomahawk missile costs $1.45 million!

#9 Even if the chemical weapons caches exist (which given the track record of Iraq, Afghanistan and the previous sarin gas being misidentified, is unlikely), blowing them up will make the chemicals spread out into the surrounding areas potentially killing however many civilians!

#10 Blowing up Syria for using chemical weapons, especially when the UK sold the components for it to Syria and the US uses depleted uranium shells and rounds, amounts to hypocrisy.

#11 The west is not the be-all, say-all and end-all, especially when one considers how it remains unaccountable for it's own war crimes [1][2][3][4][5] (hope you're happy with yourselves, military intel) and continues to persecute people, such as Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden, Michael Hastings, et alia, who expose the truth of their crimes.

#12 Syrian rebels have access to such chemicals as sarin, admitted to using it as such, and despite being affiliated with al nusra and thus al qaeda, aren't being targeted by the US. The same Syrian terrorists who will behead you if you don't convert.

#13 The Syrian rebels have a public track record of human rights abuses that are often visually demonstrated (Syrian rebel eats human heart, Syrian rebels use child soldiers, Syrian rebels kill civilians), the Syrian government on the other hand only has third hand accusations only in writing, made worse by the fact, to quote: "Rami Abdulrahman of the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which is one of the opposition-affiliated groups counting the number of those killed in the uprising, stated that civilians who had taken up arms during the conflict were being counted under the category of "civilians"" (this is misleading as it makes the armed rebels look like civilians: a civilian is a non-combatant).

#14 Such a war is untrustworthy, especially given the Saudi Arabians offered the Russians control of the global oil market if they drop their issue on Syria (and threatened to use Chechen terrorists to blow up the olympic winter games in Russia if they don't comply). They even offered to fund the US invasion of Syria. The Saudi Arabians do not have the best interest of Americans at heart: only their own selfish interests.

#15 The war was preplanned by the US and UK as early as 1957, and therefore is for selfish reasons. To quote: "Newly discovered documents show how in 1957 Harold Macmillan and President Dwight Eisenhower approved a CIA-MI6 plan to stage fake border incidents as an excuse for an invasion by Syria's pro-western neighbours, and then to "eliminate" the most influential triumvirate in Damascus.". To quote further: "a special effort should be made to eliminate certain key individuals. Their removal should be accomplished early in the course of the uprising and intervention and in the light of circumstances existing at the time".

#16 The previous, non-congress approved (congress was excused baselessly) war with Libya, resulted in Libya still being in disarray. Something they're keen to keep quiet on. As well as a few posters here.

#17 It's based largely on 'rar rar' emotional rhetoric, and not on evidence, facts, or reasoning (the fact it's being rushed through before anyone has a chance to think should clue you in). The emotional rhetoric from a child about Iraq about babies being killed with bayonets turned out to be a lie as a PR stunt by a PR firm. Silence on this matter is deafening. We don't need another Nayirah PR incident. Or another WMD incident either (funny that: both fabrications).

#18 There's clearly vested interests in invading Syria, namely, oil (just two points below Libya in ranking), thus claims shouldn't be taken at face value.

#19 Every war by the US has so far resulted in disaster: Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan (1970s-1980s), US support for Iran-Iraq war (giving Iraq sarin), Gulf war (Gulf war syndrome, anyone?), Bosnia/Serbia, now Iraq, Afghanistan again (divided by sectarian tensions), US involvement in Egypt (divided by sectarian tensions, again), Libya (divided by sectarian tensions, again). Same screw-ups as those but with Syria, right?

#20 Fukushima's radioactive poisoning of the entire Pacific ocean (and possibly the world), a much bigger issue, is largely being ignored compared to Syria, which should raise questions of motives. Wouldn't it make more sense to deal with Fukushima and give that more attention?

But there were only 20, lol. 

Thanks to Joshua Flynn for creating this list.






Tweet

Marines.com Hacked by Syria

via: ZeroHedge

Following President Obama's decision to pass the blame buck to Congress (and its oh-so-great track record of making decisions), the Syrian Electronic Army has struck again. This time right at the heart of the matter - defacing the "Marines.com" website. As The Independent reports, the US Marines received a message calling for support from their "brothers, the Syrian army soldiers" – in the form of a web attack changing the homepage of the official Marines recruitment site to a page entitled "“Hacked by SEA." The message also stated, "Obama is a traitor who wants to put your lives in danger to rescue al-Qaida insurgents," which seems to fit with many of their perspectives as we have noted previously. Full text and screenshot below...

Full text:

"This is a message written by your brothers in the Syrian Army, who have been fighting al-Qaida for the last 3 years. We understand your patriotism and love for your country so please understand our love for ours. Obama is a traitor who wants to put your lives in danger to rescue al- Qaida insurgents.

Marines, please take a look at what your comrades think about Obama's alliance with al-Qaida against Syria. Your officer in charge probably has no qualms about sending you to die against soldiers just like you, fighting a vile common enemy. The Syrian army should be your ally not your enemy.

Refuse your orders and concentrate on the real reason every soldier joins their military, to defend their homeland. You're more than welcome to fight alongside our army rather than against it.

Your brothers, the Syrian army soldiers. A message delivered by the SEA"

This will not be the last of the SEA though, as the BBC interviewed the hackers (via email) and a spokesman said the SEA had "many surprises" to come. He added: "Military intervention in Syria has many consequences and will affect the whole world. Our main mission is to spread truth about Syria and what is really happening."









Tweet

Rebels vs. Syrian Airpower (VIDEO)

For whatever side you might take, or opinion you might have in this particular conflict, this happens to be a badass piece of video out of the war zone in Syria. Not that we should be celebrating death or anything either, but at the same time I can't help but be impressed with military hardware and this video really puts you in the zone.

((( CAUTION: Some viewers may find this video disturbing, but there is no serious gore factor )))

Tweet

Kerry's Speech On Syria: Pounding the War Drums

It seems clear enough that if the missiles are not already in the air, a U.S. strike on Syria is imminent. The following is Secretary Kerry's full speech from today, with editorial commentary inserted among the full transcript. 

Well, for the last several days, President Obama and his entire national security team have been reviewing the situation in Syria. And today, I want to provide an update on our efforts as we consider our response to the use of chemical weapons. What we saw in Syria last week should shock the conscience of the world. It defies any code of morality. Let me be clear: The indiscriminate slaughter of civilians, the killing of women and children and innocent bystanders by chemical weapons is a moral obscenity. By any standard, it is inexcusable and — despite the excuses and equivocations that some have manufactured — it is undeniable.

We were also told that proof of yellow-cake and an Iraqi nuclear program were "undeniable." We were led to believe that Colin Powell brought some special and secret evidence to the UN behind closed doors, which the American public was not privy to. That was all a lie.

In this instance, we already have reason to doubt the veracity of the claim that chemical weapons were used because in March we were told the same thing, that Syria had used chemicals on civilians. Yet those reports proved to be unfounded.

Alleged chemical attack kills 25 in northern Syria

Kerry also starts off his speech by trying to take the moral high-ground, speaking of killing innocent civilians, while Bradley Manning rots in prison for revealing America's own moral depravity.

Collateral Murder: A Wikileaks Video of An Iraq War Atrocity

Notice too, the strategic time frame of his conviction, and his credibility among the political right destroyed by his being outed as an alleged transsexual.

And while Kerry speaks of the evils of chemical weapons, let us also not ignore the effects of American weapons systems, particularly with our use of depleted uranium munitions. Besides, at the end of the day once can hardly discern the moral righteousness of killing innocents with one weapon over another, dead is dead, and suffering is suffering.

Syrian Troops Fire On Civilians (WARNING: Graphic Video)

Syrian Rebels Behead Catholic Priest (WARNING: Graphic Video)

So while Kerry tries to make the case for America taking some moral high ground here in choosing sides, in a conflict that has indeed brought so much suffering to the people of Syria, let's also keep in mind exactly who we are going to be supporting.

Syrian Rebel Cannibalizes Corpse of Government Soldier (WARNING: Graphic Video)

The meaning of this attack goes beyond the conflict in Syria itself, and that conflict has already brought so much terrible suffering. This is about the large-scale, indiscriminate use of weapons that the civilized world long ago decided must never be used at all, a conviction shared even by countries that agree on little else.

There is a clear reason that the world has banned entirely the use of chemical weapons. There is a reason the international community has set a clear standard and why many countries have taken major steps to eradicate these weapons. There is a reason why President Obama has made it such a priority to stop the proliferation of these weapons and lock them down where they do exist. There is a reason why President Obama has made clear to the Assad regime that this international norm cannot be violated without consequences.

And there is a reason why, no matter what you believe about Syria, all peoples and all nations who believe in the cause of our common humanity must stand up to assure that there is accountability for the use of chemical weapons so that it never happens again.

If it happened, if chemicals weapons were actually used, then it certainly is cause for some concern. It is certainly possible, even likely that a chemical attack did take place.

But should it be of enough concern for the United States to act unilaterally against another sovereign state and embroil ourselves in yet another global conflict, acting as the world policeman, without even knowing which side is responsible? The consequences of US meddling are less justified than our other misadventures in the past, and the consequences are likely to be far more severe this time around.

This time, Russia is unlikely to sit idly by and has made stern warnings to the US in recent days. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has warned that US intervention would have "extremely dangerous" consequences, and that unilateral military intervention without UN Security Council approval would be “a gross violation of international law.”

Russia has not even acknowledged that a chemical attack even took place. Russian President Putin told British Prime Minister Cameron  in a telephone call that there was no evidence a chemical attack took place, much less who might have been responsible if it did.

Russia is not the only concern though. Syria has warned that if they are attacked by the United States, they will respond with an attack on Israel, in a coalition along with Lebanon, Iran, and surprisingly enough, Iraq as well. Which is really the nail in the coffin for our utter failure in a nine year war in Iraq. Not to mention the explosive potential for the conflict to suddenly flashover into WWIII.

Last night, after speaking with foreign ministers from around the world about the gravity of this situation, I went back and I watched the videos, the videos that anybody can watch in the social media, and I watched them one more gut-wrenching time. It is really hard to express in words the human suffering that they lay out before us.

As a father, I can’t get the image out of my head of a man who held up his dead child, wailing, while chaos swirled around him, the images of entire families dead in their beds without a drop of blood or even a visible wound, bodies contorting in spasms, human suffering that we can never ignore or forget.

Sure, tugging at the heartstrings never hurts when spinning war propaganda. Dead babies and the obligations of the parent are always excellent tools to incite knee-jerk reaction. But no one seemed very concerned when we armed Saddam Hussein with chemical weapons.

CIA Docs Reveal US Aided Saddam’s Chemical Attacks

Anyone who could claim that an attack of this staggering scale could be contrived or fabricated needs to check their conscience and their own moral compass. What is before us today is real, and it is compelling.

Again, Kerry tries to take the moral high road here while ignoring America's own history of atrocities and outright lies. He shames Americans into supporting a new war, without actually providing any proof, essentially telling us that seeking facts is morally bankrupt.

The videos he talks about above which he "can't get out of his head" are not proof of anything. If they were, we should have acted back in March. Either these videos were "fabricated" as he puts it, or perhaps it was the US backed opposition who were responsible then, as it is possible they are now.

Videos Show Aftermath of Possible Syrian Chemical Attack in March

So I also want to underscore that while investigators are gathering additional evidence on the ground, our understanding of what has already happened in Syria is grounded in facts, informed by conscience, and guided by common sense. The reported number of victims, the reported symptoms of those who were killed or injured, the firsthand accounts from humanitarian organizations on the ground, like Doctors Without Borders and the Syria Human Rights Commission, these all strongly indicate that everything these images are already screaming at us is real, that chemical weapons were used in Syria. Moreover, we know that the Syrian regime maintains custody of these chemical weapons. We know that the Syrian regime has the capacity to do this with rockets. We know that the regime has been determined to clear the opposition from those very places where the attacks took place. And with our own eyes, we have all of us become witnesses.

This all may be true. It's quite possible that a chemical attack did take place. But just because Assad's government forces have the capacity to launch such an attack, it is hardly in their interests to do so. It is certainly not worth world condemnation and attack by the United States, simply to clear out a neighborhood in their own capital city. It also gives the rebel an excuse to abandon calls for peace talks in Geneva.

But could the rebels launch a chemical attack?

It's quite possible. Most of the Syrian rebels are foreign-born fighters, not Syrians. So whoever has been funding and arming this invasion of mercenaries are the ones who are actually responsible for the entire civil war there. The rebel army is essentially an agent provocateur to begin with, and therefore certainly quite likely to use a false-flag attack to advance their mission.They are not freedom fighters, they are a proxy force being used to carry out a plan that has been in the works since 9/11, and even before.

General Wesley Clark Says 'War on Terror' Was Planned (VIDEO)

US-Created "Syrian Opposition" Led by Big Oil Rep

Most of the rebel Army have come from, or through Libya since our bombing campaign and proxy war there.

Ten Years After 9/11, US Supports Al-Qaeda in Libya

A U.S. weapons shipment bound for Syrian rebels was caught by officials in Lebanon back in February 2012. That might have been a major embarrassment if the news ever made it to prime time. But of course you will never see news like that on your mainstream news channel, who are more obsessed with pop culture than real news. And for those that did hear something about it, they have probably long since forgotten about it. You certainly won't hear John Kerry talking about how we have been arming this terrorist army of Al-Qaeda affiliates and Muslim fanatics to topple the legitimate, sovereign, secular government of Syria.

It should also be mentioned here, that Americans have already been found embedded with and fighting alongside rebel forces in Syria. 

Americans Now Fighting Alongside Rebels in Syria (VIDEO)

With such support, it is certainly quite possible that the rebels got their hands on chemical weapons. Using them to attack Assad's forces directly would be a relatively ineffective "checkers" sort of move, while using such weapons in a false-flag attack would be a much more brilliant chess-move in order to draw the US into the war directly.

The attack on the CIA information station in Benghazi was likely a casualty of our proxy service in arming Syrian rebels, and perhaps even chemical weapons specifically. 

Back in January a hacker broke into the computer system of British defence contractor Britam. A document discovered in the hacked download revealed a US-plan, facilitated by Qatar to use Britam's Ukrainian mercenaries to carry out a false-flag chemical attack in Syria using Russian-made chemical weapons exported  from Libya. 

Now given all of this information, the possibility that opposition forces might also have chemical weapons, is very strong.

But perhaps the most compelling evidence comes from the UN. While some have questioned whether a chemical attack actually happened back in March, the UN has determined not only was the attack with sarin gas real, but that it was the rebels who carried out the attack. Not the Syrian government.

Syrian rebels used Sarin nerve gas, not Assad’s regime: U.N. official

We have additional information about this attack, and that information is being compiled and reviewed together with our partners, and we will provide that information in the days ahead. Our sense of basic humanity is offended not only by this cowardly crime, but also by the cynical attempt to cover it up.

Who is covering what up, we may never know, and most likely not in time to stop us from going to war. We have been promised "that information" many times before.

At every turn, the Syrian regime has failed to cooperate with the U.N. investigation, using it only to stall and to stymie the important effort to bring to light what happened in Damascus in the dead of night. And as Ban Ki-moon said last week, the U.N. investigation will not determine who used these chemical weapons, only whether such weapons were used, a judgment that is already clear to the world.

Wait, WHAT?!!!

So not only has Kerry and the Obama administration already rushed to judgement without so much as an investigation, but the investigation under way does not even try to figure out who is even actually responsible?!

No wonder Assad won't let inspectors in. What's the point? No matter what they find or don't find, the US (and mot likely Britain) are going to do as they please regardless. How is it in Assad's interest to allow inspections whether or not his government used chemicals, if the US is just going to say that he did use them? Even if chemical weapons were used by the rebels, any evidence of chemicals will only be used against the Syrian government. This is essentially like the US demanding that the UN be allowed in to put Assad's fingerprints on the murder weapon.

I spoke on Thursday with Syrian Foreign Minister Muallem, and I made it very clear to him that if the regime, as he argued, had nothing to hide, then their response should be immediate, immediate transparency, immediate access, not shelling. Their response needed to be unrestricted and immediate access. Failure to permit that, I told him, would tell its own story.

So John Kerry seriously expects to call a "time-out" in the middle of a fight to the death, as if this whole situation were child's play.

Instead, for five days, the Syrian regime refused to allow the U.N. investigators access to the site of the attack that would allegedly exonerate them. Instead, it attacked the area further, shelling it and systemically destroying evidence. That is not the behavior of a government that has nothing to hide. That is not the action of a regime eager to prove to the world that it had not used chemical weapons.

It is in their interest to hide evidence that could be used against them falsely, for one thing. But as we have already established, what difference does it make what the inspectors find if they can never determine who is responsible?

In fact, the regime’s belated decision to allow access is too late, and it’s too late to be credible. Today’s reports of an attack on the U.N. investigators — together with the continued shelling of these very neighborhoods — only further weakens the regime’s credibility.

And that my friends, means that the order has already been given. War is imminent and the strikes by US Naval and air-power will commence in days, if not hours.It makes no difference what the facts are or who actually responsible. It makes no difference that America failed to act when the rebels used chemical weapons.

At President Obama’s direction, I’ve spent many hours over the last few days on the phone with foreign ministers and other leaders. The administration is actively consulting with members of Congress, and we will continue to have these conversations in the days ahead. President Obama has also been in close touch with leaders of our key allies, and the president will be making an informed decision about how to respond to this indiscriminate use of chemical weapons.

But make no mistake: President Obama believes there must be accountability for those who would use the world’s most heinous weapons against the world’s most vulnerable people. Nothing today is more serious, and nothing is receiving more serious scrutiny.

Thank you.

Carla del Ponte, a member of the U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria, told Swiss TV there were “strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof,” that rebels seeking to oust Syrian strongman Bashar al-Assad had used the nerve agent.

But she said her panel had not yet seen any evidence of Syrian government forces using chemical weapons, according to the BBC.

Just one question please Secretary Kerry. Can you spell hypocrite?

Also see:

'Mail Online' False-Flag Chemicak Attack Article Vanishes

 

US Planned Initial Phase Strike Packages Against Syria

Tweet

Syrian Rebel Cannibalizes Corpse of Government Soldier

While this video it is not new, it remains brutally shocking nonetheless.  As the war drums are pounding with the US about embark on yet another military misadventure, keep in mind that these are the people America is supporting.

<<< WARNING: This video is extremely graphic >>>

Tweet

'Mail Online' False-Flag Chemicak Attack Article Vanishes

In January 29, 2013, Britain’s most popular Daily Newspaper, in its online version Dailymail.co.uk published an article titled:

U.S. ‘backed plan to launch chemical weapon attack on Syria and blame it on Assad’s regime’

A few days later they pulled the article.

What the reason was for the deletion remains unclear. The article was published at this URL:
dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2270219/U-S-planned-launch-chemical-weapon-attack-Syria-blame-Assad.html

There exists a cached version of the article which can be found here:

http://web.archive.org/web/20130129213824/http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2270219/U-S-planned-launch-chemical-weapon-attack-Syria-blame-Assad.html

See scan of complete deleted article below:

One day later, on January 30, a moderated news board thread was created, which is still online, at Mail Online about that article. “Thread: Syrian WMD False Flag – Are False Flags a way of life now?“

In their initial article Mail Online refers to an Infowars.com article (dated January 28, 2013), that’s where they probably found the information on the leaked e-mail and other documents.

CapitalBay  (who published the wrong areal pictures of the school in Sandy Hook), Mail Online, Infowars, Yahoo News India, News Track India, Whale.to, Philippine Times, Uganda News, LiveLeak, Truth Media TV and others all claim in their mirrored articles that the alleged e-mail from Britam’s David Goulding to Philip Doughty was dated December 25, 2012.

However, at Neftegaz.ru (translated with Google) there also exists another version of the alleged e-mail. There the e-mail is dated December 24, 2012.

Whether the content of the alleged e-mail is correct, that’s open for debate. Fact is that PressTV has an article online which supports the claims in the alleged e-mail. And RT‘s article from last year (June 10, 2012) still claims that “Syrian rebels aim to use chemical weapons,” to then blame Assad for it. Those weapons came from Libya, according to RT. This begs the question: Did Christopher Stevens know about those weapons when he died in the CIA villa in Benghazi last year?

But why was the article pulled by Mail Online?

Why do there exist at least 2 versions of the same alleged e-mail?

And what about Britam admitting that they were hacked, according to Ruvr.co.uk (The Voice of Russia)?
But there’s also this, according to Mail Online it was a Malaysian hacker who got to the alleged e-mail(s), while Infowars claims that the e-mail was “obtained by a hacker in Germany.”

Either way, whoever initiated the Britam e-mail escapade did a good job at fooling both mainstream and alternative news outlets because it’s a real mess and few know what really happened and why.

Yet it’s ironic that Mail Online did not delete their other article where they wrote about the UN’s Carla Del Ponte who claims that Syrian rebels are responsible for “sarin gas attacks, which had been blamed on Assad’s troops.” The same rebels who now receive resources from the EU and the U.S., since the EU is buying oil from those “rebels” and the US is arming them for a proxy war as the Washington Post describes it.

Earlier it was reported that Israel had granted oil exploration rights inside Syria, in the occupied Golan Heights, to Genie Energy who’s shareholders include Rupert Murdoch and Lord Jacob Rothschild.
See http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2013/02/israel-grants-oil-rights-in-syria-to-murdoch-and-rothschild/

The preceding has been provided by: Global Research

Also see:

Hacked Documents Show Plan For US-Backed False-Flag Chemical Attack in Syria



Tweet

US Planned Initial Phase Strike Packages Against Syria

Battle plan for initial strike phase in order to disable Syrian air force.

http://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/required-sorties-and-weapons-degrade-syrian-air-force

Also see:

CBS News

Tweet

Pentagon Purges Files On Bin Laden Raid

In an unprecedented move to insulate themselves from the facts of the so-called "Bin Laden Raid" the Pentagon has purged documents from their computer systems related to that raid.

Because the outright destruction of those documents would have been illegal, they were all packed up and shipped off to the CIA where they are protected against Freedom of Information requests and even court orders. The legality of the transfer at all is highly questionable and was never even examined before the transfer actually took place. It seems that everyone agrees the move is highly irregular, even if not an outright crime perpetrated on the orders of the Pentagon's top Special Operations Commander.

The sanitizing of Department of Defense computers would have remained secret has it not been for a watchdog group who noted one sentence, referring to the purge of Bin Laden raid documents, in an inspector general's report. There had been an inquiry about whether President Obama may have shared sensitive material with the creators of the movie "Zero Dark Thirty." But even that sentence was purged from the final report.

The Associated Press has raised the alarm on yet another example of the government secrecy shell game in the following artcle:

Bin Laden raid files reportedly purged from Pentagon computers, sent to CIA

Here is an excerpt from that report:

The AP asked the Defense Department and CIA separately for files that included copies of the death certificate and autopsy report for bin Laden as well as the results of tests to identify the body. While the Pentagon said it could not locate the files, the CIA, with its special power to prevent the release of records, has never responded.

This unprecedented level of secrecy, bordering on criminality, begs a single question. Why?

To protect the "dignity" of the world's most sought after terrorist? Refusing to show the pictures of his remains seems hardly reason enough. The Pentagon was clearly not worried about putting American lives in danger, even as we were actively fighting a standing army, when they published images of Saddam Hussein's dead sons. Not to mention the brutal video of the deposed leader's execution.

Besides, if the Pentagon was really that fearful of reprisals from publishing pictures of a dead Bin Laden, perhaps they should have thought about that before they decided to execute the man, rather than putting him on trial and debriefing the world's most wanted terrorist for vital intelligence. The fact that they elected to kill him at all is dubious.

Just as dubious as his burial at sea, that was witnessed by no one, did not conform with Islamic tradition, and served no real purpose at all except to maintain inordinate levels of secrecy. 

Some have excused secrecy surrounding the Bin Laden raid as being necessary to protect the identities of the military operators who reportedly carried out the raid. Yet some of those specialized personnel have gone on to write books and appear in "tell all" interviews. It was also reported that most of the commandos who were on the raid were part of US Navy SEAL Team 6, which was decimated in a helicopter crash in the mountains of Afghanistan a short time after the raid.

This of course, led to rampant conspiracy theories that perhaps our very own government was the real threat to those commandos, and that they were wiped out to protect the secrets of the Bin Laden raid.

But this leads us again back to the question, why? What secret is so powerful that the Pentagon would go to such great lengths to cover up not only all of their knowledge about the raid, but also to virtually disavow their involvement at all?

After years and years of the American government trumpeting how dangerous Osama Bin Laden was, and his al-Qaeda network, suddenly the Pentagon does an about face and threatens the American public to shut up about the Bin Laden raid.

So what are they really hiding? What is the truth about 9/11, al-Qaeda, the war on terror, and the death of Osama bin Laden?

Also see:

No closure for 9/11 victims' families and survivors

Citing security risks, Pentagon asks nation to 'move on' from bin Laden

Helicopter Crash in Afghanistan Allegedly Wipes Out Commando Team

No Sailors Witnessed Bin Laden Burial At Sea

11 Years Later, We Still Don't Know Who Did 9/11









Tweet

Collateral Murder: A Wikileaks Video of an Iraq War Atrocity

On the tenth anniversary of the United States invasion of Iraq, we have decided to share this one video as an example, and a reminder, of just how terrible war really is. The mission, muddled, the enemy, undefined, the effort, a waste of time. This video of one single incident can almost summarize the entire misguided American adventure there. 



For an overview on some of our coverage related to the so-called War on Terror, a few highlights were posted on our FACEBOOK page. You might also review labels such as 9/11, war on terror, etc., in the sidebar at right.


Tweet

BREAKING: Israel Attacks Syria

WWIII might have just started. Iran has said unequivocally that they will defend Syria. Russia has shown bold support as well. This attack could illicit a brutal response within hours now, perhaps even nuclear.



Jerusalem Post

RT - Question More




This attack comes just as this news was breaching the mainstream media...

Hacked Documents Show Plan For US-Backed False-Flag Chemical Attack in Syria




Tweet

Hacked Documents Show Plan For US-Backed False-Flag Chemical Attack in Syria

Several days ago British defence contractor Britam came under cyber attack and went offline. A hacker going by the handle "JAsIrX" has uploaded a cache of documents stolen in the attack, and they are now being circulated online.

The documents are considered to confidential and secret, but at first glance appear to be rather mundane. Reports of employees getting in trouble for being drunk, passport information, things that might rightly be considered confidential but nothing particularly newsworthy.

But there is a very serious exception.

One uncovered document shows plans for what is known as a false-flag attack. That is, to make a military strike under the guise of being someone else.

In this case, Qatar is making an offer to the British contractor to participate in and help orchestrate a false flag attack in Syria using chemical weapons. The document states that the operation has the backing of the United States. The plan is/was to have the contractor deliver a chemical weapon to Homs, Syria. The weapon itself to be acquired from Libya so that it would be the same Russian-make and therefore the same sort that Assad would be expected to have in his own arsenal. Ukranian mercenaries under contract with Britam already, would then be used to actually carry out and document the attack, speaking Russian, and giving the appearance of being Russian military.

Specifically, one email reads:

Phil

We've got a new offer. It's about Syria again. Qataris propose an attractive deal and swear that the idea is approved by Washington. 

We'll have to deliver a CW to Homs, a Soviet origin g-shell from Libya similar to those that Assad should have. They want us to deploy our Ukrainian personnel that should speak Russian and make a video record.

Frankly, I don't think it's a good idea but the sums proposed are enormous. Your opinion?

Kind regards

David

Here is a screenshot of the actual email, click to enlarge.

For more technical data including the full cache of documents, please visit:

Cyber War News

For a more detailed article related to this information visit:

Land Destroyer Report


Tweet

'Big Oil' Rep to Lead Syrian Opposition, Just Like Libya

US-Created "Syrian Opposition" Led by Big Oil Rep

As in Libya, Syrian "opposition" is led by long-time servants of Western corporate-financiers. 

November 26, 2012 (LD) - A year ago, it was reported that Libya's new NATO-installed prime minister, Abdurrahim el-Keib, was in fact a long-time US resident, having taught at the University of Alabama and was formally employed by the Petroleum Institute, based in Abu Dhabi, UAE and sponsored by British Petroleum (BP), Shell, France's Total, the Japan Oil Development Company, and the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company. El-Keib is listed as a "Professor and Chairman" in his Petroleum Institute profile which also describes extensive research conducted by him sponsored by various US government agencies and departments over the years.

His long history of serving and working in coordination with Western governments and corporations made him and his collaborators the ideal candidates to prepare Libya for its place within the Wall Street-London international order.

Now it is revealed that the US-handpicked opposition, announced in Doha, Qatar earlier this month, is led by a similarly compromised figure, Moaz al-Khatib. The corporate-financier-funded Carnegie Endowment for International Peace reported of al-Khatib that:

Please visit source for full story and video:

CLICK HERE FOR MORE

Tweet

No Sailors Witnessed Bin Laden Burial At Sea

Internal emails among U.S. military officers indicate that no American sailors watched Osama bin Laden's burial at sea from the USS Carl Vinson... 

...According to another message from the Vinson's public affairs officer, only a small group of the ship's leadership was informed of the burial...

...In a response to separate requests from the AP for information about the mission, the Defense Department said in March that it could not locate any photographs or video taken during the raid or showing bin Laden's body. It also said it could not find any images of bin Laden's body on the Vinson. The Pentagon also said it could not find any death certificate, autopsy report or results of DNA identification tests for bin Laden, or any pre-raid materials discussing how the government planned to dispose of bin Laden's body if he were killed...

Click here for full article

Also Read:

No closure for 9/11 victims' families and survivors

Fox News reports OBL death a few days too early

Pentagon video of OBL filmed in America?

Citing security risks, Pentagon asks nation to 'move on' from bin Laden






Tweet

General Wesley Clark Says 'War on Terror' Was Planned

The following supporting piece comes from Washington's Blog. (Please visit that link to see the article in its original format.)

Wesley Clark, Supreme Allied Commander NATO, testifies in this 2-minute video that the US planned to overthrow seven countries after 9/11: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran.
The Pentagon admitted a strategy to do so (here, here, here):

1. the US conducts acts of terrorism in nations they want to control,
2. the US continues terrorism to provoke an act of reprisal,
3. the US labels the reprisal “terrorism” to justify covert and overt military operations to overthrow targeted governments.

Therefore, the US caused the “war on terror” as a policy choice; 9/11 was pretense and not the cause.

Indeed, war law and two UN Security Council Resolutions provided international cooperation for factual discovery of the 9/11 terrorists, arrests, and trial for lawful justice all nations supported.

The US rejects the rule of law, violates treaty obligations, killed over a million human beings from armed attacks since 9/11, and so far has long-term costs of $4 to $6 trillion to US taxpayers ($40 – $60,000 per household).

This rogue state of the US ends when enough Americans in military, law enforcement, government, media, education, and the general public have sufficient intellectual integrity and moral courage to accept the “emperor has no clothes” obvious facts.

This unlawful policy choice of the US for Wars of Aggression has killed 20-30 million people in covert and overt wars since 1945. It follows a long history of lie-began and treaty-violated wars of choice to steal land and resources, as I’ve reminded the public before:

1. The US regularly violated treaties with Native Americans, as well as manipulating their meaning for the purpose of stealing their land.

2. US President Polk lied to Congress to initiate a War of Aggression in Mexico. The result was the US taking 40% of Mexico in 1848. This occurred despite Abraham Lincoln’s crystal-clear explanation as a member of Congress that the Adams-Onis Treaty placed the “border dispute” 400 miles within land forever promised to Mexico and forever promised as outside any US claim.

3. The US violated our treaty with Hawaii and stole their country in 1898.

4. The US reneged on promises of freedom after the Spanish American War to impose our rule on the Philippines and install US-friendly dictators in Cuba.

5. The US entered WW1 upon no national security threat to the US and put the 3rd party presidential candidate in prison for public speeches questioning the war.

6. The CIA had several covert wars; perhaps most important in today’s context of war on Iran: “Operation Ajax” that overthrew Iran’s democracy and installed a US-friendly and brutal dictator.  When that dictator was overthrown and Iran refused another, the US aided Iraq to unlawfully invade and attack Iran from 1980-1988; killing up to a million Iranians. If the US lied and acted twice to unlawfully overthrow Iran’s democracy within our own lifetimes, shouldn’t we assume first another lie-started unlawful war today? Upon confirmation of the lies (documented below), shouldn’t we arrest the US War Criminals rather than allow them to kill again?!?

7. The Vietnam War occurred after the US allowed the cancellation of an election to unify the country, as escalated with the Gulf of Tonkin incident: false intelligence at best, but then manipulated into a false-flag event for a “defensive” war.

8. Perhaps most disturbing is the King Family civil suit that found the US government guilty in the assassination of Dr. King. Corporate media, including our text publishers, omit this history. The King family’s conclusion is that Martin was assassinated to prevent his “Occupy DC” plan beginning for the sumer of 1968 to end his version of today’s wars.

9. We now know from Congressional reports that all “reasons” for war with Iraq were known to be false as they were told.

10. The two “reasons” for war with Iran are as false as the “reasons” for war with Iraq. Beware a false flag attack by the US or Israel to blame on Iran as pretext for another “defensive” war:

1. Iran’s president never physically threatened Israel.
2. All of Iran’s nuclear material is fully accounted for peaceful and legal use for energy and medicine.

Also check out our related articles:

Central Banks Are Target Theme of Western Forces

92% of Afghans Never Heard of 9/11

Aghan Opium Trade Flourishes Under U.S. Occupation

A Few Interesting Facts About Libya





Tweet

Rogue Nukes on the Global Chessboard

The Atomic Bomb. The most lethal device ever devised. For the first time in the existence of our planet life has the ability to annihilate itself, either by mismanagement or by deliberate acts. We human-beings are at the helm of responsibility. A responsibility we have failed at, time and time again, though amazingly enough we have not destroyed the planet... yet.

In a 1968 plane crash, the US military lost an atom bomb in Greenland's Arctic ice. But this was no isolated case. Up to 50 nuclear warheads are believed to have gone missing during the Cold War, and not all of them are in unpopulated areas.

The Cold War's Missing Atom Bombs

Accidents may happen, no system is perfect, granted. But when dealing with this level of lethality, it would seem that if we can't be perfect, we have no right to play God. Well, enough of the anti-nuke talk. Personally, I can't really say that I am against nuclear weapons. What I can say though, is that we fall miserably short of being safe "gun owners."

More startlingly, it seems there are unchecked rogue factions which seek to undermine ever-more stringent controls, safeguards, even treaties. Factions which seek to exploit the "accidents will happen from time to time" approach, in order to carry out clandestine agendas which are no accident at all. I am not speaking here of radical madmen in a cave or secret laboratory. No, I am speaking of factions within the highest echelons of government, far from the purview of common man. Factions which violate international law and the security regulations of nuclear weapons, in order to carry out their agendas. What precisely those agendas are, of course we can only guess, but if we look closely enough we see that there is a most dangerous game afoot. A chess-match with nuclear weapons, more complex than the Us vs. Them approach of the Cold War, and more likely to see a mushroom cloud. A chess-match where nuclear devices have become literal game-pieces themselves, being shuffled around the planet in secrecy.


Rogue Nukes of the Eastern-Bloc

Since the fall of the Iron Curtain and the end of the Cold War, there has been much concern about the security of nuclear weapons in former Soviet empire. In Russia, the power-vacuum was filled by factions of organized crime popularly known to the west as the Russian Mafia. Were they powerful enough to get their hands on nuclear weapons? Quite possibly. Were they crazy enough to sell them on the black market? Perhaps, but it's unlikely that one would go to a lunatic nihilist with a grudge and a fat bank account. Not unless some bigger fish planned it that way anyway. It is more likely that if a nuke got loose so to speak, it would be at the behest of very powerful people with a very deliberate agenda that goes well beyond the want of a madman to vaporize a city.

It is now possible for a government like Russia to make a limited nuclear strike which can be disavowed, which they can deny that they had any part of, and blame it instead on some wily rogue. Whether or not any nuclear bomb has actually been sold by the Russian mafia on the black-market, the possibility adds a whole new complex psychological dimension to international politics and military strategy. And that may be more dangerous than one despot with his finger on the button.

84 Missing Russian Suitcase Nuke Bombs

While it is easy to imagine a lone-gunman plot, or a conspiracy portraying a lone-gunman plot with a nuclear bomb, the collapse of the Soviet Union also added another complexity to the international balance of power. Your average "Idol"-watching American probably believes that the Soviet Union is just an outdated name for Russia, and couldn't tell you the difference between Kazakhstan and Pakistan even with Borat and some Romanian village people. Russia is one country, which was the most powerful country, in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), that included nation-states such as Belarus, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan, similar to the way the United States counts Puerto Rico and Guam as "territories." The Soviet Union then held sway over other Communist nations of the Eastern Bloc, such as East Germany and Poland, the way America held sway over western European nations such as West Germany and France, during the Cold War.

When the Soviet Union suddenly collapsed, three newly independent nations found themselves inheriting thousand of nuclear weapons which had been "stranded" outside of Russia. Belarus, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan were all hosts to Soviet-era nuclear weapons outside of Russia. In the years that followed, nuclear weapon systems and the actual warheads themselves were either dismantled or shipped back to Russia, for the most part anyway, as part of different international agreements and treaties. We may never know though, how many nukes may have slipped through the cracks in those years.

Ukraine, like Russia, has been overrun by gangsters. Kazakhstan was repeatedly accused of selling warheads to Iran. Belarus still has a stockpile of highly enriched weapons-grade Uranium. Even if assurances that every warhead has been accounted for and removed from each of those countries, it's still like trying to put the genie back in the bottle or to un-ring a bell. Ukraine not only hosted these weapons, but was actually a major producer of military technology. So even without the devices themselves, they still have that knowledge. To a significant extent, that is true too for Kazakhstan, who were host to a number of key test-facilities. Today there is some concern that Russia will re-arm Belarus as a counter to the US missile shield in Europe.

Belarus Special Weapons

Kazakhstan Special Weapons

Ukraine Special Weapons

From all of this we might be left with the chilling impression that there could be dozens, hundreds, maybe even thousands of undocumented or unaccounted-for nuclear weapons in the world. They might be in the hands of black-market arms dealers, international gangsters, former military or political leaders, or even held secretly by current legitimate governments in violation of their treaty agreements. Nonetheless, promises have been made to and thoroughly investigated by western powers that this is not so. That the nukes of the old Soviet empire are either secure or dismantled. The truth of that is really up to you, the reader to discern for yourself at this point, but it has to be agreed that despite the volume of potential rogue-nukes from the Soviet collapse, most of the fear is based on vague information and anonymous sources rather than specific evidence. Which of course one would expect in the realm of the world's deepest, darkets, most dangerous secrets.

Even in the case of the missing suitcase bombs, there is no evidence that they were actually stolen or otherwise illegally distributed. It could be that they were destroyed, recycled, or wound up in some other Russian armory. On the one hand, we have folks who say that the case of the missing Russian suitcase nukes is nothing more than a conspiracy theory rooted in the simmering fears left behind from the Cold War. On the other hand, we have a new breed of conspiracy-theorists suggesting that miniature nukes were what brought down the Twin Towers on 9/11.

While most of those conspiracy-theorists use the mini-nuke theory to support that 9/11 was an inside job, by our own government, it might actually be proof that it was not in fact our own government at all. Was it those old Russian suitcase nukes which brought down the Towers on 9/11? Was Russia behind the attack, or perhaps some remnant faction of the old KGB? Were they bent on revenge, having lost the Cold War? Had such a faction perhaps infiltrated our government, the CIA, the White House? Or is this evidence, perhaps, that Israel was secretly behind the 9/11 attacks as other conspiracy-theorists have argued?

While Russia and Israel have not enjoyed the best political relations over the years, Russian Jews have flocked to Israel. Russian is the third largest spoken first-language in Israel, who host the largest number of Russian-speakers outside of former Soviet countries. Israel is also a key base for money-laundering and other operations of the Russian Mafia, the same group of people who might have gotten their hands on rogue Russian nukes to begin with. As I said earlier, such gangsters may not be insane enough to hand over a nuke to a lone-gunman lunatic, or a Muslim in the mountains of Afghanistan, but they may have felt more comfortable secretly selling them to a legitimate nation which they felt some kinship with. Was 9/11 a Mossad operation using rogue Russian nukes?

The potential number of rogue Russian nukes is intimidating. The possibility that such nukes may have been used to attack the United States is infuriating to say the absolute least. But the United States is not without it's own tarnished record on nuclear security. One incident in particular is downright chilling.


The Minot-Barksdale Incident

At the end of August 2007, several nuclear weapons in the arsenal of the United States Air Force were "lost" for 36 hours. Six stealthy AGM-129 ACM cruise missiles were each armed with a W80-1 variable-yield thermonuclear warhead, mounted to an external pylon under the wing of a B-52H Stratofortress strategic heavy-bomber at Minot Airforce Base in North Dakota, and flown across the country to Barksdale Airforce Base in Louisiana. This flight was a flagrant violation of our own laws here at home, military policy, and even international treaties. The Air Force explained away the incident as a simple mistake, but there are those who believe that such a mistake would be virtually impossible and that deliberate steps were taken for this Bent Spear event to occur. Was this incident really a mistake, or a secret mission of some kind?

USAF bombers have not flown armed with nuclear weapons since 1968, just after a B-52 crashed at Thule Air Force Base in Greenland while armed with 4 hydrogen bombs. (It is widely believed that in that incident one of the weapons was lost and never recovered.) From 1968 to 1991 USAF strategic bombers were armed, but grounded and kept on a high-readiness alert. In 1991, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, all nuclear armaments for Air Force bombers were removed, to then be maintained permanently in storage bunkers. Ground readiness drills with live nuclear weapons were also canceled from that point forward. These policies stood in accordance with international law and treaties regarding nuclear weapons.

Officially, the mission of this particular bomber and her crew was to take 12 of these cruise-missiles to be decommissioned or scrapped. Six were to be loaded on each wing, and all were supposed to be fitted with an inert warhead rather than a live nuclear one. It is not known why the bombers were tasked with this mission, rather than standard cargo transports such as C-17's or C-130's specially outfitted for such missions, as per Standard Operating Procedures. It is not typical for weapons to be transported mounted in combat positions for a non-combat mission, even when not armed with live explosives. The USAF even maintains a special squadron for the transport of nuclear devices and related components, the Prime Nuclear Airlift Force (PNAF), 4th Airlift Squadron of the 62nd Airlift Wing. It is also not known why these cruise missiles, inert or not, were being flown to Barksdale AFB. The usual place where missiles are put out of service is Davis-Monthan AFB in Arizona, not Barksdale, which was operating as a primary staging area for war operations in the middle-east. Nuclear weapons are usually decommissioned through Kirkland AFB in New Mexico where they are handed off to the Department of Energy for final disposal. But of course, the nuclear component of these weapons were never supposed to leave the bunker in North Dakota.

The Air Force account of how this happened leads one to the impression that it was a simple oversight, a mix-up, a slip-up in paperwork which precipitated everything which followed. It is their position that there was a last-minute switch within the bunker, as to what pylon was to be loaded and that as a result one of the pylons affixed with six cruise missiles did not have the nuclear warheads removed and replaced with dud-weights. It seems almost impossible though, that such a mistake could ever happen at all when you understand the procedure of how weapons are moved and accounted for. Less believable still is all subsequent oversight.

To start, a crew within the bunker readies the weapons to be moved according to the serial numbers of each unit. Once prepared to be moved, those serial numbers are then verified against the existing stockpile by this team, also known as a Breakout Crew, who must then report on any discrepancies between the weapons on hand and the weapons ordered to be moved. Control of the payload is then turned over to a Convoy Crew, who verify that the Breakout Crew is handing over the proper munitions. Keep in mind here that these are specialized crews, elites, who have been vetted and specially trained in the handling of nuclear weapons. Even if a mistake in paperwork had occurred in the bunker, they certainly should be expected to notice the mix-up at that point when the weapons were being handed off from one crew to another.

Even a cursory examination of the munitions would have revealed that these warheads had red warning signs, rather than the blue and yellow signs which declare "Inert, Non-Nuclear." One crew should have noticed that these were not the weapons they were supposed to be handing over, while the other should have noticed they were being given the wrong weapons. At the very least, even if they believed they were supposed to be moving live nuclear weapons, they should have then activated that protocol, which calls for heavily armed security and a number of other measures even to simply move them across the tarmac. Nonetheless, these weapons were moved without guard and the crew spent the next 8 hours mounting them on the B-52H. The mounted nuclear weapons were left unguarded over night, except for a chain link fence and a roving patrol. The next day, the bomber crew also failed to notice the nuclear nature of their payload. Inexplicably, only one pylon was inspected, while the other, armed with nuclear-tipped cruise missiles was not.

It is difficult to imagine that such elite crews working with such sensitive material could be so complacent. But even if we accept that, we would also have to ignore other safeguards. Even if mindless drones had tried to move nuclear weapons out of the bunker, that should have triggered a number of electronic alarms which can only be deactivated by key personnel with explicit orders from the highest levels of authority. Some alarms work like basic anti-theft devices like those used to deter shoplifters at the mall. As soon as you move a nuke out of the bunker, it trips alarms to go off everywhere alerting a special security team who are authorized to use deadly force. Other measures include motion sensors. The government is hush hush about exactly what electronic security they have on nuclear weapons, but it is also believed that any movement of nuclear weapons is tracked and monitored electronically by the NSA remotely. So even if the entire base had suddenly decided to go rogue and steal nuclear weapons, someone back in Washington DC or other monitoring station should have seen an illegal movement of nuclear weapons. Not to mention too, that whoever was in charge of the bunker should have noticed six missing nuclear warheads before they showed up on the other side of the country 36 hours later.

Even if we accept a whole string of errors and complacency which defy anything reasonable, we still must accept that, at several points, security measures were deliberately circumvented. Deliberately disarming security systems is no mistake. Either those persons were knowingly complicit in a crime, or they were acting under orders believing that the movement of nuclear weapons had been authorized. Unfortunately, either conclusion opens up any number of possibilities as to what was actually behind the Minot-Barksdale incident.

Was there a conspiracy among certain personnel and officers within the Air Force to perhaps steal a nuclear weapon? Given that the plane was left unguarded overnight at Minot, and again for another 11 hours on the Tarmac at Barksdale, there was ample opportunity. There are also discrepancies in initial reports of how many warheads were involved, among anonymous sources who first leaked the story to the press. What you will not read in any newspaper today is that while six warheads left Minot, only five warheads were actually accounted for at Barksdale. There is no way of proving that now, but it is possible that one warhead was stolen and has never been recovered.  By whom exactly, and for what purpose, again can only be guessed at.

B-52H armed with AGM-129 ACM's

But even if all six were recovered, we still are left wondering why those weapons were ever deployed in the first place and what the actual mission was intended to be. It almost certainly was not just some mistake, as the official white-wash would have us believe. At some level or another, this was a special operation, a clandestine mission, that appears to have been upset by low-level airmen at Barksdale who insisted on getting someone to listen to them that there were unauthorized nuclear weapons on the base, and to report the Broken Spear up the regular chain of command.

There has been quite a lot of speculation that points finger a the White House, President George Bush or his VP Dick Cheney. Just a few months before this incident, President Bush met with officers from Minot AFB who flew into Wichita to meet him, aboard a B-52H. Could that meeting have been a catalyst for some secret mission with nuclear missiles? Did the White House plan to nuke Iran in a secret mission, outside the normal chain of command? Or did they maybe plan to create a false-flag attack in which terrorists would be blamed for a nuclear explosion? Was this maybe intended to be a secret and illegal delivery of nuclear cruise missiles to Israel? What other possibilities might be considered? Whatever the plan, and whoever it was orchestrated by, it might very well have been much more nefarious than it was a secret mission of noble cause when one considers all of the mysterious deaths on the periphery of the Minot-Barksdale Incident.

Late John P. Wheeler Tied To Minot-Barksdale Nuke Event

Cause unclear in death of Minot crew commander

Minot AFB Clandestine Nukes 'Oddities'

Missing Nukes: Treason of the Highest Order

Incompetence or Cover-Up? The Air Force Report on the Minot-Barksdale Nuclear Missile Flight


The Dolphin, the Nuke, and Operation Samson

On May 1 of this year a report by Gordon Duff of Veteran's Today started to make it's way around conspiracy forums and alternate-media sources. The claim was that a 500-kiloton hydrogen bomb had been loaded onto a submarine in Germany. As a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Germany is not supposed to have any such weapons, having finally turned over 182 warheads to the United States in 2005, concluding their nuclear obligation to NATO military strategy.  

Who exactly was operating the submarine was not made clear in the report, which raised the point as cause for concern. More disconcerting, was that the submarine slipped beneath the waves before it even left port, and vanished in the face of tracking efforts by no less than four American and British agencies. The NSA, Office of Naval Intelligence, MI6 and the British Royal Navy were all tracking the rogue weapon as part of a counter-terrorism operation. One high ranking NATO intelligence officer was said to have been detained in Oxford for 12 hours after having all of his equipment confiscated, feeding rumors that there was some upset in loyalties within the intelligence community in the wake of having lost track of a rogue nuclear bomb.

More evidence of conspiracy, and that certain factions within British and/or American intelligence deliberately lost the bomb, is that specialized aircraft used to perform such tracking missions had been ordered to stand down. The British operate the sophisticated Boeing E3D Sentry AEW1 out of RAF Waddington, and all 7 of those units were put on a mechanical fault stand-down on April 14.

While some may speculate that Germany did not in fact turn over all of their nuclear weapons in 2005 as promised, and that perhaps the Bush Administration was in on the duplicity, the report also suggests that the device in question was not of Western-make but was instead one of four Soviet-built nuclear weapons that were being tracked.

Being unable to find any independent corroboration for the report, I didn't think too much of it and didn't bother taking the time to post a snippet here at S6U. Especially when I saw some updates talking about aliens taking the sub into another dimension and then trying to tie this story in with the Fukushima disaster and so forth. I chalked it up conspiracy-theorist cage rattling on a slow news day. I still kept it in mind though over the next few days. While I don't wholeheartedly buy into some of the more zany conspiracy theories out there, I wondered if there might be some truth at the core of the story, so I kept an eye out for more news on the matter.

INS TANIN or 'Alligator' at Kiel

As it turns out, much of the story was quite accurate, minus the little green men of course. Israel received delivery of a highly advanced Dolphin-Class submarine in the German port. Although it has a diesel motor and hydrogen-oxygen fuel cells rather than a nuclear reactor to drive it, this class of submarine is said to be one of the most advanced submarines in the world, and can remain submerged for weeks at a time while being virtually impossible to find even with the most sophisticated sensory arrays. And despite not having a nuclear core to propel it through the deep, it is believed that the submarine is outfitted with a missile system which can deliver a nuclear payload on targets 1500km away. It is also worth noting that the launch system is also virtually silent, being hydraulic rather than a compressed air system.

So did Germany throw in a nuke with the deal? Did Germany serve as proxy to deliver a black-market Soviet-built warhead to the Israelis? Is Russia complicit or negligent? For that matter, are Western powers complicit, given the debacle of losing this nuclear bomb? It is unlikely that the Russian government would have given Israel a nuclear weapon while at the same preparing to deploy their military in support of the Assad regime in Syria. Perhaps there was some assumption that because the weapon was not of Western build, that it must be Russian, especially given that it was a rogue weapon and given all that we discussed above with the collapse of the Soviet Union.

But there is a third option, the Samson Option. Was the nuclear bomb seen being loaded onto the submarine actually an Israeli nuke all along? That prospect is probably more alarming than the idea that they purchased a Soviet warhead from Russian gangsters. This would mean that Israel had a pressing need to get that bomb on the boat as quickly as possible, if they were going to risk transporting it all the way to Europe from their home on the eastern end of the  Mediterranean Sea.  

What does this mean for the prospects of war in the next six months to a year? The INS Tanin is not expected to dock in Israel until sometime in 2013, which means that it immediately set out on a patrol, more than likely to the Persian Gulf, straight from the German port. Any sailor can tell you this is quite irregular with a new ship. Usually new ships undergo a series of sea-trials. Short-trips to sea with a skeleton crew in order to test and verify all of the systems of the ship. More sea-trials are then performed with a full regular crew, so that they can become familiar with the new ship. In this case too we might expect that such an expensive, brand new ship which is such a source of pride for Israel, and which was delivered in a foreign country, might first make it's way to home port before setting out on a full mission. The urgency to put this ship into action so quickly is disconcerting, all the more so considering the likelihood that it is armed with a rogue nuclear weapon, being operated by a rogue state that will neither admit nor deny it's own nuclear capability.

Operation Samson: Israel's Deployment of Nuclear Missiles on Subs from Germany



Rogue Israel

Israel's quest for for atomic weapons existed already at their inception in 1949.

 "What Einstein, Oppenheimer, and Teller, the three of them are Jews, made for the United States, could also be done by scientists in Israel, for their own people." -David Ben-Gurion, First Prime Minister of Israel

They began by dispatching graduate students of physics to study abroad under leading scientists such as Enrico Fermi, who had been instrumental in bringing the world into the atomic age. They also recovered some small amounts of uranium from the Negev desert in a two year survey.

In 1956, Egypt nationalized the Suez Canal. Secretly, France proposed that Israel attack Egypt, as a pretext for French and British forces to invade and seize the canal, while claiming to be peacekeepers. In exchange for this, France would sell Israel a small nuclear reactor and help them build a chemical reprocessing plant. . An agreement was signed on October 3, and Israel attacked Egypt on October 29.

The Sinai War

The agreement stated that the reactor was meant for peaceful purposes, but it is fairly clear that France knew Israel intended to build atomic weapons. The reactor that was actually built was three times larger than the one outlined in the agreement, could produce 22 kilograms of plutonium annually, and became the basis of Israel's nuclear weapons program. All but one member of Israel's Atomic Energy Commission resigned in protest of the reactor, believing it to be the foundation of "political adventurism which will unite the world against us."

"I gave you the bomb in order to prevent another Holocaust from befalling the Jewish people and so that Israel could face its enemies in the Middle East." - Maurice Bourgès-Maunoury, Prime Minister of France

When Charles de Gaulle became President in 1958, he tried to pull the plug on the project and stop shipments of uranium, unless Israel agreed to international inspection and promised to not enrich plutonium. Through a series of negotiations, the project continued relatively unchanged and France continued to assist Israel's program until 1966.

The British also helped Israel by sending them restricted materials through the 1950's and 60's.

Some CIA intelligence indicates that Israel had several crude nuclear weapons by 1967, made with highly enriched uranium stolen from the US Navy. The decision to begin full production of nuclear weapons is believed to have been made following the Six-Day War that year. It is believed that the words "Never Again" were welded onto Israel's first entirely domestically produced nuclear warhead in 1968.

A secret White House memo (.pdf) reveals that President Nixon may actually have started Israel's policy of ambiguity regarding their nuclear program. The memo shows that the US was not actually aware Israel had nuclear weapons in 1969, but in a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir, Nixon emphasized American concern that Israel  "make no visible introduction of nuclear weapons or undertake a nuclear test program." That policy continues to this day. The only acknowledgement of a nuclear program of any kind was made in a statement to the Knesset, by then Prime Minister and Mossad founder David Ben-Gurion, insisting that the nuclear plant at Dimona was for peaceful civilian purposes only, when its existence was revealed in the American press.

"There is no distinction between nuclear energy for peaceful purposes or warlike ones." - Ernst David Bergman, first chairman of the Israel Atomic Energy Commission

It's little wonder why Israel doesn't believe a word Iran says about their own so-called peaceful nuclear ambitions, or their commitment to non-proliferation, when Israel themselves have made the same lies and played the same game in the past. Israel has refused to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, refused international inspections, and has carried out clandestine production of nuclear weapons for decades now.

Dimona Facility

The first real evidence of that to reach the public was in 1986, when a technician who worked at the Negev Nuclear Research Center outside of Dimona exposed Israel's nuclear weapons program to the British press. An opponent of weapons of mass destruction, and being convinced that his story was worth a million dollars, Mordechai Vanunu gave specific details on different sorts of advanced weapons which were being produced, information to calculate that Israel had a minimum of over 100 warheads, revealed an ultra-secret underground facility at the site, and even provided photographs. Before he could cash in though, he was kidnapped by Mossad and was sentenced to 18 years in prison after a secret trial. To this day he is forbidden to leave Israel and has many other restrictions to his freedom.

In 2010 a disturbing set of documents were discovered by an American academic and published in the British press. They appeared to not only confirm that Israel did have nuclear weapons, but that they were trying to sell them to the racist apartheid government of South Africa in 1975. Eight Jericho missiles tipped with nuclear warheads were on the discussion table.

Revealed: how Israel offered to sell South Africa nuclear weapons

The memos and minutes that confirm Israel's nuclear stockpile

This clearly shows that Israel is not a responsible, even if secretive member of the nuclear club. They weren't just sharing technology, but ready to deliver turn-key nuclear missiles to a regime being condemned by in the international community for their racial oppression.

Are Israel and apartheid South Africa really different?

Failing to show restraint in the proliferation of nuclear weapons is bad enough, but we also see that Israel has acted as a military aggressor on numerous occasions. First, by attacking Egypt and provoking the first war with an Arab neighbor since Israel was established, in a secret deal to get a nuclear reactor. There is no need to re-hash the entire history of the Arab-Israeli conflict here, but we do see a pattern of violent hypocrisy. While building and maintaining their own illegal arsenal of nuclear weapons, they have attacked neighboring countries who undertook nuclear research of any kind.

In the late 1970's, France agreed to supply Iraq with a nuclear reactor, fuel, and a technical staff. Unlike France's deal with Israel two decades earlier, this reactor was almost certainly for peaceful civilian purposes only, and the deal was perfectly legal by the standards of international law. As a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iraq's nuclear program fell under strict regulations and safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The design of the reactor was such that it would have taken decades to produce any weapons-grade plutonium. The presence of hundreds of foreign technicians would have made a secret weapons program impossible.

Nevertheless, Israel undertook a "premeditated and unprecedented act of aggression," as described by UN Security Council Resolution 36/27. In cooperation with Iran, Israel launched Operation Babylon (aka Operation Opera) which destroyed the facility that had not yet been completed. The attack was condemned by world as a "clear violation of the Charter of the United Nations and the norms of international conduct" in UN Security Council resolution 487. Sadly, no substantive penalty was applied against Israel and the whole affair amounted to an admonishment for Israel to never do anything like that again. Of course, that did not stop them from doing the same thing all over again, this time to Syria. Operation Orchard was carried out in September 2007. The Israeli military strike against Syria destroyed an unguarded facility that Israel claimed was a plant for building nuclear weapons.

"We can safely say that behind the successful blackout campaign lies an enormous failure... whoever expected him (Syria's Assad) to respond to the operation in a military operation was wrong."-Amir Oren, Haaretz

Given all of this information it is clear that Israel, in regards to nuclear weapons at least, is a violent, rogue state operating outside the boundaries of international law. Given their history of unprovoked attack on neighbors, it is likely that Israel will make good on their threats against Iran's nuclear energy program, while sitting on top of their own illegal arsenal of up to 400 nuclear weapons.The deployment of the submarine INS Tanis is more than likely the nuclear equivalent of putting a gun to someone's head, stalking Iran from the shoreline, while they make ready for war against Syria as well.

Israel considering military attack on Syria

This Summer could turn out to be quite Hellish, even Apocalyptic, in this high-tension environment. The Middle-East looks poised for catastrophic war once again, and this time it might very well go nuclear.

Rational Irrationality: What about Israel's nukes?

More details of Israel's nuclear weapons program can be found at Wikipedia and the Federation of American Scientists.




Other Players

While Israel may be the more powerful rogue-state on the planet, they are certainly not the only threat to global nuclear stability. As we saw earlier, the collapse of the Soviet Union may have put dozens, even hundreds of nuclear weapons into the hands of unknown parties. France and Britain were both complicit in sharing both technology and materials with Israel. The United States has lost control of a large handful of nuclear weapons over the years, turns a blind eye to the question of Israel's nuclear capability, and may even use nuclear weapons in rogue operations.

Belarus, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan are all believed to have disbanded their nuclear weapons programs, as mentioned already above. 

Now let's have a look at the other members of the nuclear club to see how they measure up. 

South Africa ... is actually now a former member. They are the first and only nation to ever willingly abandon an indigenous nuclear weapons production program and dismantle their capability. Though it is suspected that there were negotiations to purchase nuclear-tipped Jericho missiles from Israel, none were ever delivered. South Africa did however, manufacture six to eight of their own nuclear weapons before dismantling them and their program in the early 1990's. South Africa and Israel are believed to have conducted a joint detonation test in 1974, at sea between Africa and Antarctica.Proliferation from South Africa is no longer a reality.

More info


China ... initiated their atomic research with the assistance of the Soviet Union in the 1950's, but by the 1960's their relations had cooled to the point that Moscow withdrew from agreements to advance China's quest for The Bomb. Nevertheless, China detonated their first nuclear device in October of 1964. Though many estimates put their warhead count near 2000, other sources believe that China only maintains a working arsenal of about 200 nuclear weapons.

It is important to note that China is the only one of five "Nuclear Weapon States" who ratified the Treaty on Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons with an assurance that it would never, under any circumstances, use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state.

Statement on Security Assurances by the People's Republic of China

Chinese WMD's


North Korea ... is believed to be the newest member of the nuclear club after detonating a device of less than one-kiloton yield. A second nuclear test may have been conducted in 2009, with a 10-20 kiloton yield. While the layman might assume that China supported their Communist neighbor in their nuclear endeavors, the facts do not seem to bear out that. North Korea's first reactor came from the Soviet Union in the 1960's, after China rejected assistance requests. In fact, most Communist countries of the era refused to help advance North Korea's nuclear ambitions for fear that they would share nuclear technology with China, in a bit of an ironic twist. This probably accounts for the DPRK's late entry into the game at high cost domestically in energy and human suffering. For the most part, it can be seen that their nuclear capability has been a long, hard endeavor with only tidbits of resources fed to them from the outside world beyond their closed society. Considering this, and considering the limited number of weapons at hand, it is unlikely that North Korea would be a genuine proliferator of nuclear weapons at any time in the near future or recent past. Some suspect that North Korea shared technology with Syria.

More info


India ... began their program in the 1950's with some assistance from Canada, the United States, and later West Germany. Their fist nuclear detonation was achieved in 1974, and they command a vast indigenous technological network to support not only the construction of weapons, but delivery systems as well. Though some examinations reveal a capability to have produced enough raw material to create more than a thousand warheads, actual weaponry is blieved to only be about 30 to 100 weapons. This discrepancy may be a testament to their restraint, and limited goals of deterrence.

Their policy is such that they intend only a retaliatory use, but at the same time cultivate a first-strike capability in their planning. Nuclear tests in the late 1990's drew rebuke from some nations of the international community who imposed limited sanctions. India is one of three nations on the planet (including Israel and Pakistan) to refuse the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Though a bit wily on the international diplomacy scene, India seems to be a stable and responsible nuclear power with no ambitions to proliferate nuclear weapons. They support international measures to reduce, or even eliminate nuclear weapons in the world, and submit to some regulatory oversight. Their rejection of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is largely viewed as a rejection of nuclear monopoly by the "Big Five" rather than the tenets of peace put forth in the treaty itself. 

More info


Pakistan ... is a fairly late-comer to the nuclear roundtable. Their program was begun in 1972. In 1998, just after India's test that had drawn rebuke from the international community, Pakistan detonated five nuclear devices, one of which was claimed to be in the range of 40-kilotons. Their weapons program is largely viewed as a response to protect against their chief rival, India. China has been the primary supplier of technology and supplies for their program, but they have also received aid from the former Soviet Union, as well as France and other Western nations.

Pakistan is not a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. They do not maintain a "no first use" policy. particularly in regards to India, whom Pakistan's former President warned, "If your forces cross our borders by an inch, we are going to annihilate your cities." If India's substantially larger conventional forces were to overwhelm Pakistan, it would likely trigger nuclear war. Pakistan and India have been rivals since their modern inception as independent nations, and continually fight for control of Kashmir.

The security of Pakistan's weapons have been of particular concern to the United States since 2001. While Pakistan maintains that their nuclear security is the best in the world, the US fears Muslim radicals might seize nuclear weapons to be used in a terrorist attack. With upsets within Pakistan's intelligence service, the possible influence of radicals within the legitimate government is also cause for concern. The US maintains a Special Operations Force prepared to "snatch and grab" Pakistan's nukes should the need arise. These so-called "snatch squads" were put on high alert after the assassination of Benazir Bhutto in December 2007.

Pakistan continues to expand their arsenal at the same time relations with the United States deteriorate.

More info


Iraq ... began their nuclear technology program with a Soviet-supplied reactor in 1962. A secret nuclear weapons plan was approved by the Revolutionary Council in 1972, despite the fact that they were sworn not to pursue such weapons as a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The plan was specifically aimed at pursuit under the guise of a civilian-use-only research and energy program. Iraq was successful in penetrating spies into the International Atomic Energy Agency in order to maintain the charade. Despite those successes though, Saddam Hussein, now rising to prominence in the government, openly declared Iraq's intent to be the first Arab state to pursue nuclear weapons in order to counterbalance Israel's (secret) arsenal. He made this known in an Arab language newspaper in Beirut, while on his way to finalize a deal with France for the Osirak reactor, in an appeal for international assistance for Iraq's program.

Even after Hussein ascended to the Presidency in 1979, Iraq's nuclear program was still being carried out as ostensibly a civilian program with regular oversight by the international community. His own oppressive methods actually stalled the program though, as brilliant physicists were not drawn to work under the violent dictator, who even had some of his lead scientists imprisoned for essentially not delivering nuclear bombs fast enough. The war between Iraq and Iran also drew heavily on resources that might have otherwise been directed to the program.

During that war, and at the behest of Israel, Iran launched an airstrike against the Osirak facility. The damage was repaired, but the plant had still never been operational by the time it was destroyed by Israel. That attack was largely seen as having been motivated by Israel's own internal politics and upcoming elections, rather than any immediate threat by Iraq. While Israel claimed that bombs were being produced there. the reactor had not yet gone online, and a weapon system was probably not possible for another decade or more.

What advances Iraq was able to make in order to recover from the loss of the Osirak facility are debatable, but a general consensus is that Iraq was still 3-5 years away from building a nuclear weapon when they invaded Kuwait in 1990. Whatever their program was, it was reduced to rubble in Operation Desert Storm, when Iraq was ejected from Kuwait and pummeled by a US-led coalition. Under harsh embargos, no-flight zones and routine inspections by international agencies, it would have been virtually impossible to restart their quest for nuclear weapons, despite US claims to the contrary as an excuse to conquer Iraq outright more than a decade later.

A prime example of American subterfuge is the Valerie Plame affair, in which the deep-cover CIA officer tasked with preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons, had her cover blown by the White House as retribution against her husband Joseph C. Wilson. On a mission to Niger, the former ambassador had found that there had been no sale of yellow-cake uranium to Iraq, which was claimed by the White House as being a primary cause for the invasion of Iraq, and he stated this publicly in a newspaper column.

Iraq now seeks compensation from Israel for the destruction of the Osirak facility. In 2010, nuclear weapons sanctions were lifted, allowing Iraq to pursue nuclear technology once again.

More info


Iran ... began their nuclear technology program in the 1950's with help from the United States. Western assistance continued right up through the revolution of 1979. With help from Russia, their first nuclear power plant was opened in September of 2011.

Iran's public position is that their program is for civilian use only, but admit that they are trying to accomplish a completely indigenous nuclear fuel cycle. They have allowed IAEA inspections since 1992. Their need for nuclear independence, in the face of international pressure and sanctions, appears to have a large degree of legitimacy, as does their claim that sanctions against them are illegal and without standing. In most cases, when a nation submits to international regulations and inspections, they will receive technology and resources in exchange. (Civilian use programs may include power plants, medical research, and industry.) This has not been the case with Iran, because of pressure from the United States, in particular, as well as Israel. 

For example, a nation may need enriched uranium in order to operate a civilian-use nuclear reactor. Many nations will have the enriched uranium imported, under inspection, in order to keep their reactor operational. But if an embargo is placed on the nation, and the nuclear fuel supply ceases, so will the operation of the reactor. This would then lead such a nation to pursue a domestic program for uranium enrichment, which is seen as a "dual-purpose" technology, even if it is not the intention to create weapons. A lower grade enrichment is all that is necessary for the fuel to operate a reactor, while a high grade of enrichment is needed for weapons, but the same facility could produce both theoretically. In Iran's case, their enrichment program has been open to IAEA inspectors in order to quell fears of weapons-grade enrichment, but Western embargoes and other interference have led Iran to become less and less cooperative with international regulators, leaving us in the precarious position of severe distrust we have today.

That distrust goes back as far as the 1979 revolution in Iran, where the US-backed government was toppled in favor of the Islamic theocracy which rules today. It may have been unwise to make an enemy of the United States, but America has a long history of having a short memory. Friends today, enemies tomorrow, and visa versa. But that was not the only point of distrust. For the Muslim students who had toppled the American-backed dictator, they were suddenly keenly aware of the duality and hypocrisy of the Western world when it comes to nuclear weapons. Documents they found floating amid the chaos in Tehran showed overtures by the Shah toward Israel, to get involved in their nuclear weapons program. Iran has known all along about Israel's secret nukes. While the world condemns one theocracy for even pursuing any nuclear science at all, they support another that maintains a full renegade arsenal of apocalyptic weapons.

More info


Syria ... is believed to have begun a nuclear technology program in 1979, but progress has been difficult for them and the program has only been rudimentary. As a signatory of the Nonproliferation Treaty all of their research and development was said to be for civilian use only and no substantive evidence of a weapons program has ever been made public. Syria has repeatedly tried to purchase a small research reactor from various countries, legally and under full oversight, but each contract was cancelled under pressure from the United States and Western powers. This may have forced Syria to resort to more secretive methods in order to advance their science. It appears that Syria may have finally gotten a small reactor from North Korea and this time chose not to disclose the deal publicly. That reactor appears to have been the target of an Israeli airstrike in September of 2007, in the above-mentioned Operation Orchard. This "damned if you do, damned if you don't" principle has only become more clear now as Western powers move to topple Syria, even though their nuclear program is virtually non-existent at this point

More info

Other nations with nuclear power


Where we stand now

Western governments portray a popular uprising now in Syria as being the natural will of the people there yearning for democracy, but the facts do not bear out this propaganda. The insurgents battling government troops in Syria are largely foreign-born al-Qaeda fighters, mercenaries and terrorists, secretly supplied with armament by Western powers. In essence, we see a proxy war unfolding now, directly managed by NATO Special Forces units who have been deployed inside Syria. Meanwhile, Russia continues to supply weapons to the Assad government, as they have done by contract for years as an ally. As tensions continue to rise, Russia is about to get underway now with a naval task force bound for Syria.

With Russian forces on one side supporting the legitimate government in Syria, and Western forces on the ground directing the insurgency, the explosive potential for world war now exists. Which of course also sharply increases the chances of nuclear weapons being used, either directly, or covertly perhaps as part of a false-flag operation. Keep in mind too, that it also appears an Israeli ballistic missile submarine is being injected into this precarious strategic environment. What we see happen in the next few months could indeed reach Biblical proportions of disaster and human suffering. 

Tweet