Domination over Europe


Domination over Europe

Originally posted on Global Geopolitics:

Every day it becomes increasingly clear that Germany is using economic warfare as a means to subjugate EU members and force them into being vassal states. It’s also clear that all EU members aren’t on board and won’t tow the German line, therefore we are likely to see in the future a breakup of the EU because it was never going to work in the first place, yet it was by design that this was to happen. As a result, look for an inner-core of Europe consisting of ten nations to be formed and in a union around the German center. The manufactured chaos will allow for German political influence coupled with its economic tenacity during hard times to lead the way while the remaining members latch on to its leadership and give it power.

To preempt a complete and 100% breakdown or revolt against its imperial hegemony as the article…

View original 841 more words

Newly Declassified Government Documents: Pre 9/11 Bin Laden Hijack Plot Was Ignored By US Intelligence

by Steve Watson

File this under 9/11 government prior knowledge with the mountains of other examples from the past twelve years. Newly uncovered government documents show that the US government ignored a specific warning in 2000 that Al Qaeda planned to hijack a commercial airliner headed for the US.
After eleven years, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), the country’s military intelligence arm, has released documents to watchdog group Judicial Watch, that show the warning was ignored because “nobody believed that Usama bin Laden’s organization or the Taliban could carry out such an operation.”

Judicial Watch notes that the documents “reveal that Al Qaeda had a sophisticated plan to hijack a commercial airliner departing Frankfurt International Airport between March and August 2000. The hijack team was to consist of an Arab, a Pakistani and a Chechen and their targets were U.S. airlines, Lufthansa and Air France.”

Judicial Watch requested the material in May 2002 as part of its Terrorism Research and Analysis Project.

The group notes that the files are very rich in detail and show that the US government had intricate operational information, even down to names, addresses and phone numbers of the terrorist operatives, based in Frankfurt, Germany.

The documents show that the plot was being directed by a prominent Saudi with direct ties to the Saudi royal family, operating in conjunction with Qaeda, Taliban and Chechen terrorist cells in Hamburg and Frankfurt, one of which was being headed by lead 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta.

Judicial Watch’s analysis also notes that the US government had intelligence indicating that Al Qaeda had gotten an operative on the inside of the German Embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan, to provide EU visas to be used in forged Pakistani passports.

The watchdog group notes that “information about the plot came from an unidentified human intelligence source that provided U.S. authorities with copies of Arabic letters containing details of the Al Qaeda plot.”

Previous news reports, including this AP article, from 2007 dovetail with the DIA documents. Former intelligence officials cited within the report indicate that the information came from France’s foreign intelligence service, and that the information was also directly passed to the CIA.

Information about the hijacking plot has been known about for some time following reports by journalists with AFP, AP, and Le Monde. The details are documented in the 9/11 timeline. According to those reports, the US government had intricate details that a German based plot, personally approved by bin Laden himself, was underway.

The French intelligence agents were said to have gleaned details from Uzbek spies who had infiltrated the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU), a militant group based in Uzbekistan next door to Afghanistan and closely tied to bin Laden and the Taliban.

The DIA documents provide solid proof that a branch of the US intelligence community had been provided detailed warnings about the hijacking plot.

Several other examples of the US government knowing before 9/11 about detailed Al Qaeda plots to hijack airliners, and even fly them into buildings including the Pentagon, have been recorded. The DIA had detailed information on the German Qaeda cells through its Able Danger program.

The fact that no one within the intelligence community believed bin Laden, living in a cave, could pull off such a plot is telling. Indeed, many Americans believe that he didn’t pull it off, that the plot itself was hijacked and put into operation by rogue elements of US intelligence, in co-operation with Saudi and Israeli counterparts.

The DIA documents represent an important revelation, because they are declassified US government documents that confirm what intelligence insiders have already leaked, thus bolstering previous revelations of government prior knowledge.

Sadly the documents are likely to not be widely reported on by a pathetic mainstream media that in most cases is locked into 24 hour news cycles based on drivel, no longer referencing events that happened a week ago, let alone twelve years ago.


FBI Plays the Role of Domestic Spy And Spy-Enabler, Says New Report

by J.D. Tuccille

Sure, the National Security Agency has been caught spying beyond the borders of the United States and also here at home. But the NSA scoops up its domestic data courtesy of the the FBI and the enormous surveillance powers that law-enforcement agency has acquired in recent years. The Bureau isn’t shy about spying on its own behalf, either. Never hesitant about flexing its muscles to target dissenters and whistleblowers, the FBI, reveals a new report from the American Civil Liberties Union, was empowered and set loose in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, and is more dangerous than ever.
You know those phone records we’ve been fretting about the NSA accumulating? Well, in Unleashed and Unaccountable: The FBI’s Unchecked Abuse of Authority, the authors write:

Every 90 days for the past seven years the FBI has obtained secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA Court) orders compelling telecommunications companies to provide the government with the toll billing records of every American’s telephone calls, domestic and international, on an ongoing daily basis.

That’s because intelligence agencies in the United States are supposed to focus their efforts beyond the country’s borders. But if they team up with a law-enforcement agency authorized to operate within the United States…
In fact, the strictures to which the FBI itself was subject, because of a history of “targeting immigrants, racial and religious minorities, and political dissidents for surveillance, infiltration, investigation, and ‘disruption strategies'” have largely been lifted as a consequence of 9/11. the FBI has also gained access to new legal authority and the technological tools to more intrusively scrutinize people’s communications and activities, for good or ill. The FBI may now be tapping so many sources of information that’s it’s effectively trying to drink from a firehose. The ACLU report quotes former FBI Director William Webster complaining of a “data explosion” that brings in too much information to analyze.
The loosened restrictions on the FBI are sometimes explicit, such as the authority granted by the Patriot Act, but also a matter of creatively interpreting existing laws and court rulings.

Attorney General Michael Mukasey rewrote the FBI’s rule book in 2008, giving FBI agents unfettered authority to investigate anyone they choose without any factual basis for suspecting wrongdoing. The 2008 Attorney General’s Guidelines created a new kind of intrusive investigation called an “assessment,” which requires no “factual predicate” and can include searches through government or commercial databases, overt or covert FBI interviews, and tasking informants to gather information about anyone or to infiltrate lawful organizations. In a two-year period from 2009 to 2011, the FBI opened over 82,000 “assessments” of individuals or organizations, less than 3,500 of which discovered information justifying further investigation.
The FBI has a habit of using “exigent letters” which are legal shortcuts supposed to be used only in emergency circumstances, to gather information. When this becomes problematic, it sometimes issues secret National Security Letters to cover the earlier use of the exigent letters. The FBI has used hundreds of thousands of NSLs, but the exact number isn’t clear since, at least at one point, the Bureau lost track.

Aside from its own investigative efforts, the FBI has also taken to collecting data from state and local law-enforcement agencies, as well as private sources. This is all part of the firehose mentioned above.

Who is on the receiving end of all of that data collection? Well, so much data is hoovered up that you could say all of us. But in recent years, the FBI has specifically targeted Muslims and Arabs, advising agents to be on the lookout for suspicious activities such as “frequent attendance at a mosque.” FBI training materials also express concern about “Anarchist Extremists” and continue a decades-long obsession with “Black Separatists.”

This might be all right if the FBI were specifically watching for violent and criminal activity by the aforementioned groups, but many of the warning signs for which agents are supposed to watch are as First Amendment-protected as attending religious services—including submitting FOIA requests.

And when the FBI does bust criminal activities with infiltrators and informants, there’s often a question about just who is guilty of what.

In many cases the government agent provides all the instrumentalities of the crime, chooses the target, designs the plot, and provides the gullible subjects financial support or other incentives to carry out the plot. The subjects are often destitute and at times become financially dependent on the informants.

Exempted from the Whistleblower Protection Act, the FBI freely retaliates against employees who attempt to call out wrongdoing. As a result, it’s rare for FBI employees to speak out. That culture lends itself to a willingness to target whistleblowers in other agencies—and journalists. Apart from recent revelations about spying on the press, “In 2010 the Inspector General reported the FBI used an illegal ‘exigent letter’ to obtain the telephone records of 7 New York Times and Washington Post reporters.”

Born in the fear- and intolerance-fueled red-scare Palmer Raids that even the FBI itself labels “certainly not a bright spot for the young Bureau,” the FBI seems to have done litttle over the decades but add power and high-tech toys to its ever-authoritarian institutional persona. For which the NSA thanks it.

Read the full ACLU report here.

Read more

Independent NSA spying review not so independent

Stung by public unease about new details of spying by the National Security Agency, President Barack Obama selected a panel of advisers he described as independent experts to scrutinize the NSA’s surveillance programs to be sure they weren’t violating civil liberties and to restore Americans’ trust.

But with just weeks remaining before its first deadline to report back to the White House, the review panel has effectively been operating as an arm of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which oversees the NSA and all other U.S. spy efforts.

The panel’s advisers work in offices on loan from the DNI. Interview requests and press statements from the review panel are carefully coordinated through the DNI’s press office. James Clapper, the intelligence director, exempted the panel from U.S. rules that require federal committees to conduct their business and their meetings in ways the public can observe. Its final report, when it’s issued, will be submitted for White House approval before the public can read it.

Even the panel’s official name suggests it’s run by Clapper’s office: “Director of National Intelligence Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies.”

Read more

Afghan Warlord: ‘The West Must Give Us Our Weapons Back’

By Christian Neef

Though NATO claims it will be leaving behind a pacified Afghanistan when it withdraws its troops next year, there are already increasing signs that the former mujahedeen are reactivating their militias. The mujahedeen were the main military force that resisted the Soviet occupiers and the communist Najibullah regime — and later fought the Taliban. Their leaders, who represented diverse ethnic groups, were popular but also often notorious for their ruthlessness. Now, the mujahedeen want to arm their militias for renewed fighting and a possible civil war.
Furthermore, Ismail Khan, 65, a leader of Afghanistan’s Tajiks, warns in a SPIEGEL ONLINE interview that the Afghan army trained by the West will never be capable of ensuring the country’s long-term security. Khan, who once ranked among the country’s most powerful warlords, comes from the western province of Herat, which remains his stronghold. He was the provincial governor there until 2004, and is currently the minister for water and energy in Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s government.

Read more

Iran’s Rouhani tells UN: we pose no threat to the world

by Julian Borger and Ed Pilkington

Iran’s new president, Hassan Rouhani, declared that “peace is within reach” on Tuesday, in a hotly anticipated speech at the United Nations in which he offered immediate negotiations aimed at removing any “reasonable concerns” over his country’s nuclear programme.
Rouhani argued that in return, Iran wanted the international community to recognise its right to enrich uranium, the issue that has been at the heart of the diplomatic impasse over the past 11 years.

The Iranian president, elected in June, was speaking a few hours Barack Obama had stood at the same podium and pledged to focus his administration’s foreign policy in its remaining three years on the Middle East, particularly on reaching a diplomatic settlement in Iran.

Obama assigned his secretary of state, John Kerry, to oversee negotiations with Tehran and offered Rouhani an important symbolic gesture, making the first official US acknowledgement of the CIA’s well-documented role in the ousting of Iran’s democratically-elected government in 1953.

But despite the positive gestures a much-anticipated meeting between the two leaders not materialise. The White House said it offered to arrange a discussion in the margins of the general assembly but said that Rouhani’s office deemed it was “too complicated”.
He did not go into details and a meeting with Barack Obama did not materialise. The White House said it offered to arrange a discussion in the margins of the general assembly but said that Rouhani’s office deemed it was “too complicated”.

In his speech however, Rouhani said he had “listened carefully” to Obama address earlier in the day. He concluded that if Washington did not give in to the influence of “warmongers”, then the US and Iran “can arrive at a framework to manage our differences”.

The framework Rouhani suggested for dealing with the stand-off over Iran’s nuclear aspirations offered a trade between increased Iranian transparency and international recognition of Iran’s right to enrich.

“Our national interests make it imperative that we remove any and all reasonable concerns about Iran’s peaceful nuclear programme,” he said, adding that Iran “is prepared to engage immediately in time-bound and result-oriented talks to build mutual confidence and the removal of mutual uncertainties with full transparency.”
On the other hand, he said that the country’s mastery of the technology had reached such an “industrial scale”, and so could not longer be reversed. So the world should instead recognise Iran’s basic right to carry out all parts of the nuclear fuel cycle.

The vague nature of Rouhani’s offer, the accusatory tone of much of the rest of his speech, and the failure to organise a meeting with Obama all served to dampen expectations of an immediate breakthrough.

Diplomats and observers at the UN said it was clear that Rouhani’s speech was principally aimed at a domestic audience, particularly Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei and the regime’s hardliners who are suspicious of Rouhani’s charm offensive in the West.

In his UN speech earlier in the day, Obama made clear that the US saw the Iranian nuclear programme as a more immediate and serious threat to its core interest. He responded to the overtures of the newly-elected leadership in Tehran by putting Kerry in charge of the coming critical weeks of intense negotiations.

Given President Rouhani’s stated commitment to reach an agreement, I am directing John Kerry to pursue this effort with the Iranian government, in close coordination with the European Union, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia and China,” the president said. A senior administration official described the move as “a significant elevation” in the status of the talks.

It move mirrored Rouhani’s decision to put his own foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, in charge of the talks from the Iranian side, breaking from the practice of the past eight years of abortive negotiations of assigning them to senior officials. The foreign ministers of all seven countries are due to meet for the first time at the UN on Thursday.

“Directing secretary Kerry to lead this, signals that the negotiations may be elevated to the foreign minister level, which would be very good news,” said Trita Parsi, the head of the National Iranian American Council, and the author of a book on US-Iranian negotiations, A Single Roll of the Dice.

“This means that far greater political will is being invested into the diplomatic process, which in turn increases the cost of failure. That is exactly what is needed to overcome the political obstacles to a deal.” Obama acknowledged the difficulties ahead. “The roadblocks may prove to be too great, but I firmly believe a diplomatic path must be tested,” he said.

Obama offered Rouhani an important symbolic gesture, making the first official US acknowledgement of the CIA’s well-documented role in the ousting of Iran’s democratically elected government in 1953. “This mistrust has deep roots. Iranians have long complained of a history of US interference in their affairs, and America’s role in overthrowing an Iranian government during the cold war,” he said.

The reference to the CIA’s part in the ousting of Mohammad Mosaddegh, Iran’s democratically elected leader, marked a first official admission of that role, and represented an important gesture to Rouhani. It will be seen in Iran as a diplomatic victory and belated acknowledgement of a long-festering Iranian sense of injustice. The coup, supported by both the US and the UK, paved the way for the dictatorship of the shah, and then the 1979 Islamic revolution against it.

“I don’t believe this difficult history can be overcome overnight. The suspicions run too deep. But I do believe if we can resolve the issue of Iran’s nuclear programme that can be a major step,” Obama said.

The US president expressed optimism about this week’s talks. “We should be able to achieve a resolution that respects the rights of the Iranian people, while giving the world confidence that the Iranian programme is peaceful. To succeed, conciliatory words will have to be matched by actions that are transparent and verifiable.”

Thursday’s talks involve Rouhani’s foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, Kerry, the UK foreign secretary, William Hague and foreign ministers from Russia, China, France and Germany.

Much will depend on how far Rouhani is prepared to go to remove what he described as the “reasonable concerns” about Iran’s nuclear intentions. If that involves Iran’s acceptance of strict limits on the degree of enrichment allowed and a stricter regime of inspections, there may room for a deal.


Washington’s Tyranny

By Paul Craig Roberts

The war criminal barack obama has declared his “outrage” over the 62 deaths associated with the takeover of a Nairobi, Kenya, shopping mall by al-Shabaab fighters. But the attack on the shopping mall was obama’s fault. Al Shabaab spokesmen said that the attack on the Nairobi mall was a retaliatory response to the Kenyan troops sent to fight against them in Somalia. The Kenyan troops, of course, were sent to Somalia as a result of pressure from Washington.

Just as the outbreak of violence in Mali resulted from the fighters that obama used against Gaddafi moving into Mali, Washington’s violence against Somalia has resulted in the terrorist attack on the Nairobi mall.

This fact again raises the never-asked question: What is the real( agenda of Washington’s “war on terror”? )The western presstitutes never ask this question, nor do western legislative bodies.
Washington has offered a variety of justifications for its 12 years of wars. One is that Washington is rooting out terrorism in order to protect Americans from 9/11 type events. Another is that “dictators” must be overthrown and replaced with “freedom and democracy.” Still another is false claims of the possession of “weapons of mass destruction” (Iraq) and the use of “weapons of mass destruction” (Syria).

None of Washington’s claims can withstand the barest scrutiny. None of the governments that Washington has overthrown and seeks to overthrow are terrorist states. Indeed, some are not even Islamist governments. Saddam Hussein’s Iraq had a secular government, as does Assad’s Syria.

Washington’s explanations for murdering Pakistanis and Yemenis with drones are even more nebulous. Moreover, using military means to kill citizens of countries with which the US is not at war lacks all legality.

When obama gets on the moral high horse about deaths in Syria or Nairobi, his hypocrisy is astounding. A person would think obama would be ashamed. The Egyptian military, which is financed with $2 billion annually from Washington, has just overthrown the first elected president in Egypt’s history, banned the political party that Egyptians elected to power, and confiscated the political party’s assets, money, and buildings.

The Washington-sponsored Egyptian military shot down in the streets many more Egyptians protesting the overthrow of their government by a military coup than died in the Nairobi mall. But we hear nothing from Washington or obama about the need to support democracy in Egypt.

When the British Parliament voted down providing cover for obama’s criminal attack on Syria, Parliament created space for Russia’s President Putin to resolve the Syrian situation by obtaining Syrian President Assad’s agreement to join the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and to turn over all Syrian chemical weapons to an international body.

The warmonger obama regime was outraged that Washington’s military attack on Syria had been blocked. Washington and the Israel Lobby went into full scale demonization of President Putin for orchestrating peace instead of war. The obama regime is trying to block the agreement by insisting on incorporating into the UN resolution an opportunity for attacking Syria if Washington is not convinced that all chemical weapons are turned over.

The entire world knows that Washington will again lie through its teeth, assert that all the weapons were not turned over and use the wedge that Washington is attempting to force into the UN resolution to start another war. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has publicly stated that Washington is trying to blackmail Russia into accepting the potential for military intervention in Syria as part of the agreement.

Until the 21st century, Washington carried out its relentless nefarious activities against other peoples and countries under cover and out of sight. In the 21st century the criminal bush and obama regimes have brazenly demonstrated their disregard for US law, international law, and human rights.

Hubris and arrogance have run away with the “superpower.” The US stands reviled by the world. At the UN summit on September 23, the president of Brazil denounced the obama regime for its “breach of international law” revealed by the spy scandal. Bolivian President Evo Morales is filing a lawsuit against the obama regime for “crimes against humanity.”

When the world looks at Washington, it cannot differentiate Washington from the dictatorships that Washington attributes to other countries. The Washington regime has declared that it is above both law and Constitution and possesses the power to detain citizens indefinitely and to murder them without due process of law. These powers comprise the necessary and sufficient conditions for dictatorship.

Who will liberate Americans from Washington’s tyranny, overthrow the executive branch dictatorship, and bring freedom and democracy to America?

Read more