Oho! said the pot to the kettle; You are dirty and ugly and black! Sure no one would think you were metal, Except when you’re given a crack!
Not so! said the kettle to the pot; Tis your own dirty image you see; For I am so clean – without blemish or blot – That your blackness is mirrored in me!
-Maxwell’s Elementary Grammar
So, Obama admits “we tortured some folks” referring to Diane Feinstein’s Senate committee (in a recent spat with John Brennan’s CIA) will be releasing (a much redacted) report on ‘black site’ jails. So, what is wrong with this picture?
1) This a classic case of softening the narrative.
Firstly, Brennan had been up to his armpits (thank you Glenn Greenwald, for this 2008 article) in the Bush torture program, keeping in mind the mentioned Senate report had been completed prior to Feinstein voting to confirm John Brennan to Director of CIA:
MARGARET WARNER: “So is it — are you saying both in two ways — both in getting terrorists off the streets and also in the interrogation?
JOHN BRENNAN: “Yes. The rendition is the practice or the process of rendering somebody from one place to another place. It is moving them and the U.S. Government will frequently facilitate that movement from one country to another. . . .
“Also I think it’s rather arrogant to think we’re the only country that respects human rights. I think that we have a lot of assurances from these countries that we hand over terrorists to that they will, in fact, respect human rights”
How absolutely unwise of Brennan to use the Egypt example (keep reading) in the cause of renditions he supports, because his CIA proxy interrogator (torture darling) in Egypt at the time was Omar Sulieman:
“Shortly after 9/11, Australian citizen, Mamdouh Habib, was captured by Pakistani security forces and, under US pressure, tortured by Pakistanis. He was then rendered (with an Australian diplomats watching) by CIA operatives to Egypt, a not uncommon practice. In Egypt, Habib merited Suleiman’s personal attention. As related by Richard Neville, based on Habib’s memoir:
Habib was interrogated by the country’s Intelligence Director, General Omar Suleiman…. Suleiman took a personal interest in anyone suspected of links with Al Qaeda. As Habib had visited Afghanistan shortly before 9/11, he was under suspicion. Habib was repeatedly zapped with high-voltage electricity, immersed in water up to his nostrils, beaten, his fingers were broken and he was hung from metal hooks.
“That treatment wasn’t enough for Suleiman, so:
To loosen Habib’s tongue, Suleiman ordered a guard to murder a gruesomely shackled Turkistan prisoner in front of Habib – and he did, with a vicious karate kick.
“After Suleiman’s men extracted Habib’s confession, he was transferred back to US custody, where he eventually was imprisoned at Guantanamo. His “confession” was then used as evidence in his Guantanamo trial”
Yeah, this is the guy [Brennan] who supports rendering to torture (with a wink and a nod called human rights ‘assurances’ by Brennan) Feinstein then voted to confirm as Director of CIA, the same CIA that she’d recently been in a spat with over release of a torture report compiled and completed by her own committee prior to her vote confirming Brennan.
Softening the narrative means (without saying) ‘we’ did not torture Mamdouh Habib, the Egyptians did.’ Obviously this case will not be in a report about CIA ‘black site’ jails because Omar Suliman’s medieval dungeon was not run by the CIA and limited to stress positions, beatings, wall slamming, water-boarding, loud music and sleep deprivation. We merely delivered the material to Sulieman so he could deliver the product; ‘evidence’ for Guantanamo trials.
And when Brennan went on (in the previously linked, at paragraph 3, Greenwald article) to state:
“And there are different ways to gain those assurances. But also let’s say an individual goes to Egypt because they’re an Egyptian citizen and the Egyptians then have a longer history in terms of dealing with them, and they have family members and others that they can bring in, in fact, to be part of the whole interrogation process”
Do you suppose Brennan’s cynically referring to this statement in a Human Rights Watch report?
“…[Egyptian] techniquesinclude threats to inflict torture or sexual abuse on detainees’ female family members, including wives, threats to arrest family members, exposure to screams…’
John Brennan is the very same man Obama has met with on ‘kill list Tuesdays’ for years and they decide together who will be subjected to extra-judicial assassinations. Sort of like the Christmas song lyrics ‘he knows when you are sleeping, he knows when you’re awake, he knows if you’ve been bad or good, so be good for goodness sake.’ That’s what happens when you don’t put evidence in front of a competent court, a value judgment. Only now it’s beyond torture, it’s about killing people.
Who did Feinstein vote to confirm to the Federal Appeals court? David Barron, author of Obama’s ‘murder is legal’ theory. Nothing quite like putting people complicit in your crimes on the courts but that is what Obama has done with the generous support of Senator Feinstein:
“The most troubling issue in David Barron’s record is his role as the author of the legal opinion that justified what is rather coldly referred to as “extrajudicial killing” by the United States federal government. Put more plainly, David Barron concocted a legal justification for President Barack Obama, so that the President could order the U.S. military to execute American citizens, because of suspicion of criminal behavior, without any trial or due process”
Recalling Bush had nominated ‘torture is legal’ Jay Bybee to the Federal bench, let’s go to the thought Senator Feinstein never encountered a 1st, 4th or 5th Amendment FISA violation she did not like, until it was the CIA spying on her committee staff. Then, Feinstein changed the label, in her case these violations are not ok because they are suddenly ‘separation of powers’ violations. The clear indication, based on her record is, violations of the American peoples’ rights are ok, just don’t violate the rights of Feinstein. Reinforcing this would be, Feinstein voted to confirm Valerie Caproni as a federal judge; the very same woman [Caproni] who’d when the FISA Court had rejected a surveillance request, had gone ahead and authorized her FBI agents to target the victim regardless. In all, over the courts first thirty three years, the FISA court had granted 33,942 warrants, with only 11 denials. Let’s make that a de facto 10 denials, recalling the Bush FBI lawyer Caproni nominated to be a federal judge by Obama, with Feinstein voting in favor.
Softening the narrative is solely what’s happening with the ‘we tortured some folks’ confession of Obama, who has never brought a single prosecution, rather appointing, with the staunch support of Feinstein, the complicit criminals to power, Brennan to Director of CIA, as well Barron and Caproni to become Federal judges. The facts surrounding CIA delivering Mamdouh Habib to Omar Sulieman’s dungeon will not be delved into, nor will what must be the many cases more of delivering renditioned ‘detainees’ to 3rd party torture along the lines of slicing Binyam Mohamed’s penis and testicles:
“torture that included slicing his genitals with a scalpel after being rendered to foreign interrogators”
Nor will Brennan, Barron, Bybee or Caproni be prosecuted. Oh, and lest we forget, the few unredacted CIA ‘black site’ details that emerge will absolutely pale when compared to General Petraeus complicity in CIA ‘dirty wars’ style torture camps and death squads documented by the Guardian, and altogether ignored by Feinstein’s torture committee:
That’s your ‘hope and change’ folks. It’s called softening the narrative, a psychological ploy intended to assuage public sentiment with a minimal admission of crimes past, in midst of ongoing crimes spree .. all the while packing the federal judiciary with personalities complicit in the crimes, as well, consider this following (10 December 2014 update)
“119” renditioned ‘black site’ prisoners (the number given in the now released report) certainly can’t be squared with 11,000 (eleven thousand) flights by planes known to have flown CIA renditions, Feinstein’s ‘torture report’ is not credible because the disparity in the math is too great:
Leopards don’t shed their spots, folks. What’s being covered-up prima facie is, a whole lot of ‘disappeared’ people along the lines of the South American juntas during the CIA’s Latin America ‘dirty wars’
Updates appended at article’s conclusion, particularly noting the 27 January 2019 update concerning recent Russian propaganda on the Ukrainian Buk surface to air missile –
This article sorts through the initial waves of disinformation in the days immediately following the downing of MH 17. The ‘BUK’ surface-to-air missile shoot-down scenario is closely scrutinized and ultimately discarded as a propaganda ruse; by the end of July, 2014, inside of two weeks of MH 17’s demise, media should have foreclosed on the surface-to-air missile story and directed their efforts to investigating a Ukrainian fighter jet, instead of parroting what clearly are official and egregious lies.
‘Noise’ & the shoot-down of flight MH17
Propaganda |ˌpräpəˈgandə|
noun
1 chiefly derogatory information, esp. of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.
• the dissemination of propaganda as a political strategy. ORIGIN Italian, from modern Latin congregatio de propaganda fide ‘congregation for propagation of the faith’
Black propaganda is false information and material that purports to be from a source on one side of a conflict, but is actually from the opposing side. It is typically used to vilify, embarrass or misrepresent the enemy” -typical definition
A Noise Attenuator is a device necessary for a military radar to set aside ‘clutter’ and guide a missile to its target.
The only noise attenuator that can be applied to propaganda is human counter-intelligence measures. It’s early to determine what is actually going on with the ‘shoot-down’ of Malaysia’s Flight MH17 but there is ton’s of propaganda ‘clutter’ or ‘noise’ that can be attenuated, so let’s have a go.
“Nobody believes a liar…even when he is telling the truth!” -Aesop … is the main problem Obama and U.S. intelligence have to cope with, in relation to flight MH17. Am I saying Obama has it right this time? No, because no one can believe a liar and how many times have Obama and the NSA & CIA been caught lying recently? For a reasonable picture of the USA’s recent lies, trust Glenn Greenwald at The Intercept. I’m only saying we have to look in a highly critical manner at whatever claims the USA might be making now. Exhibit A:
So, Obama has “increasing confidence” the plane was downed by ‘rebels.’ What does Kiev claim that Obama endorses? Exhibit B:
The SA11 (also known as a Buk) was allegedly smuggled out of Ukraine and into Russia overnight. This mobile missile system is reported to have been captured by the rebels on June 29th and had been reported by both Kiev and the rebels to be non-operational. Exhibit C:
This would make perfect sense, because retreating Ukrainian soldiers would be trained to disable the machine as a high priority; as simple as removing a critical part, such as the attenuator. But wait! The SA11 system isn’t just one track vehicle launcher, but three additional track vehicles required to function as a battery. Exhibit D:
So, how is it the numerous internet photos of the suspect SA11 missile launcher purportedly in the hands of the rebels is missing 75% of its necessary components, i.e. radar command and control system (track vehicles) necessary to guide the missile? Exhibit E:
And then you have a video allegedly taken by a Ukrainian spy, supposedly showing the culpable launcher traveling with no attending radar, command & control vehicles in allegedly ‘rebel’ held territory and there is another problem; the video appears to have been taken from a camera in a low flying helicopter at hover (vibration) and if you freeze the video at the proper millisecond (during the 9th second of the video), it captures what appears to be a fleeting drop of water on plexiglass (been there, seen that.) In the image the drop appears as a small blue smudge about 25% into the photo from left, mid-distance between top and bottom. This video could have been recorded at anytime by regular Ukrainian forces in possession of a SA11 launcher. Exhibit F:
Does a Buk launcher have a rudimentary, stands alone radar integrated? Yes, presuming there were a functioning system in the hands of the ‘rebels’ which it would seem there was not. Any professional technicians allegedly provided by Russia would absolutely understand a stands alone launcher would be too dangerous to use for target engagement because it would be firing ‘blind’ .. because this rudimentary detection component would be a ‘range only radar’ that can tell you practically nothing about a target other than distance. And most certainly they would inform any ‘rebels’ asking for technical assistance the launcher could not be used in this state. Would Russian technicians endanger Russian (and other) civilian flights, OSCE flights, treaty over-flights, et cetera..? Excuse me, but the parody of Russian mentality engendered in western propaganda does not apply in reality, because unlike the neo-nazi forces controlling Kiev, these are not stupid people. Additionally, one would have expected any operational SA 11 system in rebel hands would have been previously exposed, if it were so much as to have employed its radar to lock onto (‘paint’) aircraft, because Ukrainian (or ‘other’, such as USA ) surveillance or military aircraft in the area would have detected this with built in electronic counter-measures. On top of this, anyone qualified to operate the SA 11 would realize Flight MH 17 was not a Ukrainian military flight for the simple fact of altitude. At 10,000 meters height, it would be clearly obvious this plane could only be continuing on to Russian airspace, any military cargo flight intended to resupply Ukrainian forces in the close proximity Ukraine/Russia border region would have been maneuvering for landing, already at much lower altitude.
Having trained on a similar system (Improved Hawk) to the Buk or SA 11, I tend to agree with the experts doubting the rebels have this capability.
A question should be asked; did Kiev keep this airspace open above 10,000 meters and Ukrainian air traffic control send the flight into area where rebels had downed planes in the preceding days, as a false flag? There certainly are historical precedents. Or was it simple stupidity, such as Ukrainian SAM units recently moved into the area had been testing the system after set-up (this would be routine procedure) and launched because the personnel were not competently trained to take the critical steps differentiating between a test exercise and a live launch … with the Malaysian flight the unfortunate victim of a test of the system gone totally wrong. Ukraine’s military had been neglected for over two decades prior to present. Without sufficient resources for training, professionalism, the related, necessary, keen edge required to operate a SA 11 system competently, cannot be sustained. It certainly doesn’t help Kiev’s case they had shot down a civilian passenger jet previously. Exhibit G:
At the end of the day, I don’t think it much matters where any allegedly ‘missing’ ‘rebel’ missiles went, if there is no functioning radar and command & control present to guide the system. Kiev had admitted the captured Buk launcher was non-operational and any Russian technicians would, based on simple, sensible rationale, refuse assistance to repair, deploy and operate a stands alone ‘blind’ Buk launcher. We can infer consequently, where the launched missile(s) came from (Kiev forces.)
Black Boxes & Chain of Custody
Civilian flight ‘black boxes’ can only rule out a mechanical failure and can lend nothing to determining who might have fired a missile bringing the plane down, other than the recording the blast, because civilian airliners do not have electronic counter-measure capability. Flight MH 17 would never have seen the missile coming and could record nothing relevant to what sort of missile it was and could not record a launch location. The pilots almost certainly would not have time to react with any relevant conversation, prior to near instant target incapacity (depressurization) in the case of a civilian plane. The boxes would be largely limited to information such as determining whether there had been instructions to deviate flight path and rationale/reaction. This brings up the flight control records in Kiev and a report the Ukrainian SBU (secret service) had immediately confiscated this information critical to (impartial) investigation. Exhibit H:
This now bears on what information might be in the black boxes, where the preceding two hours conversation between the pilots, and between the pilots and Kiev, would be recorded. Whoever has the black boxes, has the information seized from the flight controllers, and additionally, the pilots internal (cockpit) conversations. What might have been a rationale for diverting Flight MH 17 into overflight of a combat zone by the controllers in Kiev? What did the pilots express between themselves, concerning this?
The ‘rebels’ wanted the Russians to have and analyze the black boxes because they don’t trust the western democracies and their corrupt intelligence agencies. The Russians didn’t want the black boxes because they’d be accused of manipulating the data. Who then could be trusted with custody of this critical information? The OSCE? Don’t hold your breath waiting for any impartial party (or analysis) because of Exhibit I:
Not only has there been a longstanding de facto ‘unconditional surrender’ demand by the western democracies to the rebels, with their support of Kiev, now the OSCE has already tried and condemned Russia as the guilty party for allegedly arming the rebels, enabling the shoot-down of MH 17. The only question is, who COULD be trusted to safely deliver and analyze the information in a manner satisfactory to all parties? Likely answer? No one. Because at the end of the day, someone has to take responsibility and that someone will do anything in their power to prevent the truth coming out. If it is (and likely is) Kiev’s forces shot down Flight MH 17, the western democracies (and the USA particularly) will bend over backwards to prevent the unthinkable; having never pressed the Ukrainian government for a honest ceasefire, the possibility looms they will be held accountable for the crimes of Kiev.
Dark Arts
“The end and aim of spying in all its five varieties is knowledge of the enemy; and this knowledge can only be derived, in the first instance, from the converted spy. Hence it is essential the converted spy be treated with the utmost liberality” -Sun Tzu, The Art of War
Deception of the enemies’ public is one of the objects of war. When corrupt rulers treat their own public as the enemy, the state will not, cannot endure. What can become of any creature that devours itself? History does not forecast a kind reckoning for the rulers in Kiev. Or for the western democracies backing a regime devoted to killing its own people in Ukraine.
In the art of modern war, black propaganda is mass media pinning responsibility for some nefarious act on an innocent party, in their own words. And then running with the story for as much efffect as possible. If you are a Ukrainian ‘rebel’ and you use social media (the western democracies ‘armchair rebels’ should pay attention to this), you are setting yourself up for black propaganda. Exhibit J:
Happen to be a ‘rebel’ commander with a facebook page? Recently in stark disbelief its everywhere in western media your page showed you claiming credit for shooting down a civilian aircraft and the posting was almost immediately deleted, before you ever saw it? And you hadn’t even logged in? To quote a 1960s Black comedian from the era of vinyl records, ‘you have just been fugged‘ (by GCHQ or NSA, your choice.) Exhibit K:
Considering the USA & allies have depended largely on social media for ‘evidence’ to now, a relevant list of western democracies social media manipulation programs run by corporations, intelligence agencies & military can be found at this link.
A dry observation would be, since I’d begun this piece, over the course of several days research of the hysterical officials claims in western press, the narrative of the morons in Kiev claiming the rebels had sneaked a Buk launcher out of Ukraine overnight, has only been exceeded for lunacy by John Kerry who thinks the Russians had sneaked a Buk into and out of Ukraine overnight .. oh, and that must have something to with the rebels volunteering the inoperable, captured Buk for inspection by international monitors. And that’s it folks. Except for the fact the plot thickens –
post 20 July 2014 information: Russia has released radar information and satellite images pointing to Kiev in the shoot-down of Flight MH 17, while the USA’s Department of State is relying on social media to point the finger at Russia. There’s a problem with relying on social media in any quest for truth; the NSA & GCHQ have programs dedicated to employing social media for disinformation purposes (see the ‘dark arts’ section towards the conclusion of this article)
In blatant disregard of any appearance of neutrality in the ‘international’ investigation, Russia is stabbed in the back by the Dutch & British. Having just previously signed on to an ‘impartial investigation’ at the UN Security Council, Kiev aligned western democracies (Netherlands & Britain) unilaterally decide British experts will analyze the ‘black boxes’ for the ‘international’ investigation. Exhibit L:
If it were to have been the case the recordings would demonstrate Kiev air traffic control had ordered Flight MH 17 to deviate directly over the point of its shoot-down, likely we will never know (noting it had been reported Ukraine’s SBU, or secret service, had confiscated the air traffic control records in Kiev.) Noteworthy in the reporting is the inverse of factual reality presented to the reader; the boxes are represented as a possibility to shed light on a ‘rebel’ shoot-down of MH 17 when in fact the boxes could reveal nothing of a missile strike’s launch location but air traffic control instructions could point to Kiev. Malaysia is not even mentioned in the (AP source) breaking news… bringing into question the Malay leadership in regards to their (former?) Dutch and British colonial masters-
U.S. intelligence surpasses its previous evasions with a new propaganda onslaught; Whereas Russia had produced satellite images of SA 11 vehicles in Ukrainian forces control and invited the USA to release its images of precisely the same areas on those dates, instead the USA merely denies Ukraine had SA 11 Buk systems in the area and produces images in Russia of a military base, claiming these images are proof of a military buildup in the border region. It’s called bait and switch pulled on the western media readers. Insofar as the actual shoot-down geography, the Americans produce a mock-up (map) together with the satellite images taken of Russia. Exhibit M:
In fact the satellite images could actually reflect where Russian forces had withdrawn to insofar as we know, considering the disingenuous record of the USA intelligence community. In any case the USA would not appear to be willing to produce its satellite images of the area in Ukraine (subjecting them to any honest forensic investigation), rather prefers parroting the same social media ‘evidence’ and pushing previously debunked photos of a missile launcher provided by Ukraine’s SBU (secret service.) Message to the Washington Post readers who’ve bought into this .. ‘there’s a sucker born every minute’ .. because “You could get a journalist cheaper than a good call girl, for a couple hundred dollars a month.” -CIA operative cited in “Katherine The Great” by Deborah Davis
RT Live has rebroadcast a BBC correspondent’s interview of on the ground witnesses, indicating there was indeed a military jet in the immediate proximity of Flight MH 17. These on the ground witnesses had reported seeing a jet making a sharp turn maneuver and departing, when immediately looking up at the sound of explosions. This would seem to confirm the Kremlin reports of military radar tracking what is presumed to be a Ukrainian Sukoi 25 in attack range of the Malaysian flight downed by missile(s). The BBC had fairly quickly deleted this report filed by its employee on location (third party transcript here.) It is this last fact indicates to this reporter (myself) a suppression of evidence on behalf of the authorities in Kiev; as I’d a previous encounter with BBC suppressing facts embarrassing to the western democracies.
Tangentially related, an Interpol arrest warrant has been issued for USA coup ally Dmitriy Yarosh. Yarosh had been instrumental in uniting extremist elements & the Maidan protesters turning violent, resulting in the (USA applauded) overthrow of Victor Yanukovych. It took nearly five months for the Russian request to be acted on but at the end of the day, substantive evidence must have required action by Interpol; pointing to the sort of bedfellows the U.S. Department of State (nee CIA) has engaged in Ukraine.
Russia had been complaining Ukrainian troops had been firing into Russian villages in the border region, and now the USA releases ‘satellite images’ claiming Russian artillery is firing at Ukrainian military units across the border. This would be perfectly justified if it were true but there are problems with the USA’s attempt to distract from the issue of Flight MH 17. Former Reagan administration official and veteran journalist Paul Craig Roberts lays out the case. Exhibit N:
“Publishing charges on the US ambassador to Ukraine’s Twitter and using them as a basis to argue that Russia is firing at Ukrainian territory is ludicrous and unprofessional
“In serious cases like that, I would recommend for the US to look into briefings, such as the recent briefing by Russia’s Defense Ministry. In it, everything was clear: satellite images were presented, they were decoded, and the pictures were as detailed as possible; everyone could make out the details
“In addition to satellite imagery data, the satellite control and electronic intelligence were attached. There were also maps, plans, and diagrams included. On the US ambassador’s Twitter you cannot make anything out, even with a magnifying glass
“This is not serious at all, it is low-skilled work. What was published by the US ambassador is part of an information campaign to force European countries to agree on anti-Russian sanctions”
In the meantime, new USA satellite photos are (quite reasonably to this veteran intelligence professional) alleged to be fake. Exhibit O:
Very noteworthy is, the USA still has not met the Russian invitation to match Russia by producing the satellite images of a Ukrainian army unit in possession of a SA 11 ‘Buk’ missile launcher in the vicinity of the Flight MH 17 at the time of the shoot-down. Russia has produced these images. Why won’t the USA?
Meanwhile, Kiev forces have launched an offensive to take control of the Flight MH 17 crash site in violation of earlier promises to keep a ceasefire in the area. The USA has been shouting propaganda the ‘rebels’ are hindering access to the site and impeding investigation when it is the regime they support actually complicating matters. Exhibit P:
A simple observation on this immediate preceding would be, if the USA disapproved the Kiev combat push for control of the crash site, it wouldn’t be happening. Additionally, were it to be the case a Ukrainian Sukhoi 25 combat jet (alleged by the Russians to have been seen in close proximity to the Malaysian flight by military radar) had shot down Flight MH 17, Kiev would be desperate to take control of the crash site and dispose of evidence consistent with a Sukoi 25 shoot-down of MH 17. Exhibit Q:
Can the SU 25 ground attack combat jet achieve the 10,000 meters altitude necessary to validate the Russian claims? According to the aviation website Red Star, the short answer is yes. The Ukrainian air force had, in 2012, undertaken a major upgrade program to modernize their SU 25 aircraft. Exhibit R:
According to specifications, the SU 25-M1 (upgraded) model can achieve 10,000 meters, depending on its armament load. Without carrying a bomb load, rather armed with cannon and air to air missiles, the Russian claim is demonstrable. Exhibit S:
At the end of the day, it seems perfectly plausible the entire ‘Buk’ episode consists of Kiev forces parading a SA 11 system, subsequently attributed to an alleged shoot-down of the Malaysian plane by ethnic Russian ‘rebels’ in Ukraine, as a cover story; on account of Flight MH 17 had in fact been shot down by a Ukrainian forces Sukoi 25 combat jet.
Of course none of this proves anything, but only goes to show holes can be poked in the Kiev claims endorsed by Obama. So, will the USA (directly, not via stooges in Kiev) provide high quality, properly dated satellite images backing up the official line? They probably can’t. A closing thought would be, had Obama not written into history his proven track record as a liar, we would not need be as disturbed at his claims concerning Ukraine as we are at the actual shooting down of MH17.
Der Spiegel has put up an article reporting German intelligence (BND) has determined a Ukrainian separatist militia was responsible for the shoot-down of MH 17 using the captured Buk, which seems thoroughly discredited. The BND did not make public the evidence it claims to back their report to the German politicians. I left this comment at the article:
In the present geopolitical climate and Angela Merkel’s ‘tough guy’ stance with Russia on Ukraine, it would do well to recall the history of the BND from its inception and the person of Reinhard Gehlen. This would be especially relevant to subsequent social phenomena of Gladio and the several NATO aligned western democracies intelligence agencies interfering with police investigations resulting in no accountability for some considerable crimes; when those crimes did not reflect well on the incumbent authorities. With the NATO nations heavily invested in a certain propaganda line in regards to Russia juxtaposed to recent events in Ukraine, any BND reporting should be viewed with a philosophy of ‘caveat emptor’
There is relevant information on the formation and political alignment of the BND in my intelligence assessment: Deep State IV (NATO & Gladio)
20 October 2014 note:
Read my letter to German parliamentarians on the matter here:
In the months since the shoot-down of MH 17, what should be clear is, a preponderance of the evidence shows the Buk surface to air missile scenario has been a ruse is overwhelming. Continued reporting in media on a line of evidence that has by now become thoroughly discredited, rather than foreclosing on the surface to air missile possibility, points to intelligence agencies’ professional information engineering to detract attention from the fact it was a Ukrainian combat jet downed MH 17:
21 March 2015 update: A reporter ‘finds’ BUK fragments which are lab tested BUT this recalls FBI & CIA involvement in Lockerbie; when evidence had been planted. The suspect story here:
By this time the evidence site had been severely compromised in a highly charged geopolitical circumstance where after eight months suddenly there is BUK evidence recovered, tested and made public; against overwhelming preponderance of circumstantial evidence the plane had not been brought down by a BUK missile. Contrast this ‘public evidence’ with a “non-disclosure” agreement where any one party to the investigation, including the likely party responsible for downing MH 17 can block evidence release to the public:
This bears remarkable resemblance to classic intelligence agency ‘information operations’ where there is conviction in the public forum even as evidence pointing to the actual perpetrators is arranged to be with-held
April 2015 update: The Dutch investigators are so short on evidence of a BUK missile shoot down of MH 17, they have advertised a call for witnesses; practically inviting mentally unbalanced attention seekers and professionally prepared false testimony from Kiev:
6 May 2015 update: Reuters reports a ‘leaked’ Russian military assessment at odds with the overwhelming circumstantial evidence of a combat jet had downed MH 17. False Flag journalism? Geopolitical play? My assessment here:
1 June 2015 update: ‘Empire News’ (ABC) picks up blogger Eliot Higgins ‘crowd-sourced’ Bellingcat ‘Russian’s faked photos’ story on MH 17. How strange is it, when ABC News (or any other western outlet) refuses to carry a story on the head of STRATFOR calling regime change in Kiev the ‘most blatant coup in history’ but will pick up information no competent intelligence agency should have missed (and none reported), presented 10-1/2 months after the fact from a group founded by an amateur? My assessment at:
14 July 2015 update: Phil Giraldi’s assessment questioning the ‘Russia did it’ narrative (I think he is too generous to the western democracies but worth a read nonetheless)
13 October 2015 update: American mainstream media (and western press generally) sucks up to what amounts to a faked investigation and release of a falsified report:
14 January 2016 update: Russia sends a letter to the Dutch on the use of speculation in their MH 17 crash reports as well as ignoring/excluding evidence provided by the Russian side
24 February 2016 update: Russia Insider Magazine publishes an analysis of problems facing the Dutch prosecutors after the fact of their report; again pointing to an air to air missile downing MH 17
30 January 2017 update: The Dutch investigators “can’t decipher” the radar data provided by the Russians. As well, Dutch police have confiscated from journalists raw footage of new witness interviews that will no doubt be shared with Ukraine as a party to the investigation, endangering those persons who provided the information on condition of confidentiality:
30 December 2017 update: A professional defense blog in Pakistan recaps the MH 17 shoot down, incorporating what are asserted to be leaked documents out of the regime in Kiev, confirming it was Ukrainian jet fighter(s) brought down the civilian flight:
There is a preponderance of the evidence MH17 had been brought down by a Ukrainian SU-25 combat jet as attested to by the Russians, who handed the relevant radar data to the Dutch-led investigation. This evidence had been at first stonewalled and finally ignored. Meanwhile (quite sometime later) the Western led investigation produced fragments of a (Soviet era) Russian manufactured Buk surface to air missile. The Russians declassified the Soviet era documents showing that particular missile (custody established by serial number) had been delivered to and should have been in the possession of (post-Soviet inheritance) Ukraine.
Now, where I have a problem with the Russian side is, the Russians finally saying (metaphor) ‘if you want to own the Buk, go ahead, because if you claim that particular missile brought down MH17, Ukraine owns the crime’ (no one is accusing neo-nazi led Ukraine of being particularly intelligent, especially when producing Buk fragments that can be traced directly back to the Ukrainian military.)
Here’s the evidence backed by witnesses on the ground and apparent actual circumstance:
“A Ukraine Air Force military jet was detected gaining height, it’s distance from the Malaysian Boeing was 3 to 5km,” said the head of the Main Operations Directorate of the HQ of Russia’s military forces, Lieutenant-General Andrey Kartopolov speaking at a media conference in Moscow on Monday.
“[We] would like to get an explanation as to why the military jet was flying along a civil aviation corridor at almost the same time and at the same level as a passenger plane,” he stated” [1]
Here’s the Russian side’s weasel words that follow the Dutch-led investigation producing the Buk fragments:
“I’ll again go back to the beginning. From the very moment of the crash, Russia was very determined to assist in the investigation. That is why Russia was providing all information that emerged about the disaster, including the testimony of the Ukrainian military, since the evidence of a second aircraft in the sky was around at that time. Verifying the accounts [of the incident] is the task of the international investigation.
“Later, more weighty arguments and evidence began to emerge in favour of the scenario of a surface-to-air missile, which, as a matter of fact, was confirmed by an experiment by the Almaz-Antey concern back in 2015. They identified the type of missile — it’s an old modification — the trajectory of its flight and, therefore, the place from which it was launched. This account, as well as the type of missile and the launch site, which were originally established by Almaz-Antey, were finally confirmed by the data of the Ust-Donetsk radar station, which Russia also handed over, and by the debris of the missile found by the JIT, which helped to establish its Ukrainian origin” [2]
Preceding is what appears to be irreconcilable accounts (noting the second Russian version does not claim placing the SU-25 at the scene was a mistake) if one attributes “including the testimony of the Ukrainian military” to the Ukrainian air force mechanic who defected to Russia, fearing for his life, after overhearing the (just landed) pilot of the SU-25 (the mechanic had armed with air to air missiles) appear to claim he’d shot down the MH17 civilian flight. It is also noteworthy the Ukrainian SU-25 pilot later ‘committed suicide.’ [3] [4]
The Buk scenario creates a picture of Ukraine forces would risk downing their own combat plane in immediate proximity to MH17 at point of destruction. It makes no sense. What does make sense is, the Ukrainian Buk could have been exploded in controlled circumstance to ‘create’ evidence. What also makes sense is, the Russians taking an attitude if the Dutch-led JIT [Joint Investigative Team] wants to claim it was that particular Buk missile brought MH17 down, Ukraine owns the responsibility, so let them. This also allows for a future picture painted it was incompetence, not malice, downed MH17, avoiding the otherwise indisputable ‘act of war’ where the civilian liner had been deliberately destroyed for purpose of falsely implicating Russia. Opening the door for the Ukrainian Buk points to Russia pre-positioning to allow for a ‘graceful exit’ from the crime (assigned to Ukrainian forces incompetence), were the Western democracies ever to wish to mend relations with Russia; nevertheless a case of ‘doing truth no favor.’
Insofar as Western (or Western aligned) intelligence agencies murderous behaviors concerning shoot-down of airplanes, there is a recent analysis of the assassination of Dag Hammarskjold that shares traits with the downing of MH17; the absolute refusal of certain countries (Ukraine re MH17’s air traffic control records, USA re MH17 satellite photos & USA re Hammarskjold’s DC-6 flight) to release records in their possession. [5]
26 March 2019 update: Ukrainian SBU (intelligence officer) defects to Russia, and points his finger directly at Ukrainian military intelligence & one of Petro Poroshenko’s top aides as complicit in bringing down MH17:
This has been sent on in modified form as an open letter to German parliamentarians –
*
This post is intended to be updated time to time with short blurbs on hypocrisies, possible legal conundrums, myopic political acts and general oxymoron in geopolitical events. A sort of thumbnail sketches amalgamation of modern democratic idiocy in the circumstance & lives of spies. This has been inspired by my own case, which began as a more routine police investigation of what had been initially assessed as attempted murder of myself in Germany, relating to a attempted corruption cover-up originating in the USA. When investigation had begun, it came in the ‘wrong door’ so to speak, as there was assumption this was a more normal criminal case, as opposed to a geopolitical case involving what appears to have been an authorized ‘extra-judicial’ attempted assassination by close German allies. This is almost certainly when things became sticky for the German authorities, upon realization by police investigation, following leads developed in my case, the principal actors very clearly pointed to CIA & MOSSAD. But there is more:
On 17 June 2014, the western news spits out the fact a former high ranking Yugoslav spy will be tried in Germany for ordering the murder of a German resident Yugoslav dissident in 1983. The charge is “accessory to murder.’ This raises an interesting point.
My own case points not only to a refusal at the very top of German politics to prosecute (as well as German politicians displaying rank cowardice), but indicates collusion at the top of the German intelligence agencies in attempted murder of the person [myself] in a case their own police had been investigating. This is not only a case of demanding extradition for crimes ordered carried out in Germany from foreign soil, the question arises if the three German interior ministers, over the span of these past seven years, have blocked prosecution of the principal actors in my case, even as it became clear this was ongoing effort to silence a witness [myself] by allied intelligence, should they be, based on the present prosecution of the former ranking Yugoslav spy, be prosecuted as well? Does blocking the issuing of warrants by refusing referral to a prosecutor, failing to make extradition demands, arrests & prosecutions (even on the pretense of ‘ongoing investigation’ that may be deliberately intended to drag on forever, so to evade acting) as the attempted assassination stalking had gone on, constitute ‘accessory to murder’? These are questions that should be put to prosecutors as regards to German Interior Ministers Wolfgang Schäuble who was on watch in my case beginning with initial assassination attempts of October 2007 and did not act through his time in office to 28 October 2009, also Thomas de Maizière, 28 October 2009 to 3 March 2011, Hans-Peter Friedrich, 3 March 2011 to 17 December 2013, & again Thomas de Maizière, 17 December 2013 to present (2nd term)
Recipe for creating inextinguishable, persistently mutating & rabid disaster, also known as ‘bringing democracy’ to the Arab world:
Hydras & Hydrophobia (or how to create black out of white)
General Petraeus training and arming Sunni ‘awakening councils’ in Iraq.
Stop paying & leave noted ‘councils’ unemployed on exit.
Arrange Sunni insurrection in neighboring Syria, where recently trained & presently unemployed Iraqis can look for a job.
Set up financing and arms to opposition in Syria via Saudi Arabia, courtesy of a Petraeus led CIA (financing by default to the Saudi favored Salafist fundamentalist groups, inclusive of al-Qaida aligned militia.)
Base your operations out of NATO’s Turkey & western democracies’ lap-dog Jordan.
Have your ally in Qatar broadcast a call to jihad in Syria, to millions of Sunni Muslims across the world (why, thank you al-Jazeera!)
Have the CIA, in concert with MI6, DGSE & MOSSAD, contract former special operations forces to assist the opposition in Syria.
Realize too late, fundamentalists who source their training to initial American efforts in Iraq and recently boosted by the new endeavors of western intelligence, have become the most powerful factions in Syria.
Replace psycho-killer Petraeus at CIA with psycho-killer John Brennan.
Freak out at your own anti-Assad effort in Syria upon realizing who will be in control if CIA led effort to overthrow the regime is successful (Salifist fundamentalists, in some cases so extreme as to be disowned by al-Qaida.)
Distract people from what’s happening with the world class CIA screw-up in Syria with new caper engineered by same CIA, in Ukraine.
As Assad reasserts control in Syria, see thousands of well trained fundamentalists pour out of Syria across the border into Iraq, rout the Iraqi army and capture countless tons of American supplied weapons.
When Ukraine distraction has failed, blame Russia for everything.
Fail to realize the eventual assessment of the Christian fundamentalists running the Pentagon will be, the only sensible option is to nuke the Islamic fundamentalists, as well as Russians, Jews, Blacks, cartoonists, author of this blog, women, gays, anyone who doesn’t believe in literal Armageddon, people who sue the church (especially alter-boys that talk) …
No, I’ve not become an unabashed supporter of Marine Le Pen. And I am not in love with Putin’s conservatism in every respect. But the thing is, when truth is trashed by the neo-liberal left, it should be exposed equally as to any truths trashed by the neo-conservative right. Where Putin, Le Pen and Farage stand head and shoulders above Obama, Hollande, Cameron and Merkel is, Putin, Le Pen and Farage have some degree of principled ethics which are actually meant to be put into practice, as opposed to the political lies of the western political personalities and pundits, so easily and naturally expressed (and exposed I might add.)
The so-called ‘left-liberal-progressive’ “NATION” magazine has become, over this past decade, a shameless disinformation yellow sheet (or ‘rag’) little better than the “National Enquirer” in respect to factual reporting. Hosting guests such as Zbigniew Brzezinski, and with columnists such as Robert ‘Bob’ Dreyfuss, recalls George Orwell…
“The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which”
…considering the neo-liberal foreign policy wonks cannot be distinguished from the neo-conservative, let alone distinguish for themselves the difference between a legitimate conservative and a Nazi. I had already dealt with Brzezinski’s geopolitical lies and now it is Dreyfuss turn. Dreyfuss opens his 30 May 2014 column at The Nation with:
“The scary fascists who, according to Russia, have taken over Ukraine since the “coup d’état” and ousted the former president didn’t do too well. Who did do well were the actual scary fascists in Western Europe who were supported by, well, Russia. According to one report:
“”The supposed reservoirs of reactionary thinking in Western Ukraine generated an embarrassing 1 percent of the vote for Oleh Tyagnibok of ultra-nationalist Svoboda Party and less than 1 percent for Dmitry Yarosh of the new Right Sector party that sprung up during the protests. A story run by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency notes that Tyagnibok and Yarosh together received fewer votes than Vadim Rabinovich, a Jewish candidate who captured a little over 2 percent of the ballots””
“There’s no doubt that Svoboda and Right Sector are bad actors. But the overweening propaganda from Moscow claiming that Kiev is being ruled by “fascists” is now proved to be ridiculous. (Not that Moscow’s propaganda since the Ukraine crisis erupted has been anything but ridiculous, starting with its claims that it wasn’t invading Crimea and its claims that it isn’t secretly behind the eruption of ersatz “people’s republics” in Eastern Ukraine’s Donets Basin region.)”
This sort of drivel is why I’d long since cancelled my subscription to The Nation. In fact Svoboda still has 37 seats in parliament and five ministries in the CIA supported, putsch installed regime in Kiev. But somehow Dreyfuss would have us all believe one recently elected candy oligarch, who has not dropped a line coming from the authentic fascists holding Parliament and larger government hostage in Kiev, is a substitute for Fall elections, before we can know the rest of the story. At the pace things are moving in Ukraine, Fall is a very long ways off.
And then Dreyfuss goes on:
“Meanwhile, the elections for the European Parliament—admittedly, a weak institution—reflect a troubling shift toward right-wing, fascist-leaning and ultra-nationalist politics in several European countries, including France and Great Britain. While some left-leaning parties did well, too, the biggest gains were made by parties such as the UK Independence Party, France’s National Front and a pair of far-right Greek parties. As I wrote in this space on May 21, Russia has formed an anti-EU alliance of convenience with many of these self-same fascist parties in Europe”
In fact the UK Independence Party is quite a long a stretch to compare to the neo-nazis in Kiev. It is only recently UKIP has been smeared as fascist and racist, when it became apparent voters were turned off by the neo-conservative/neo-liberal partnership of Cameron-Clegg and wanting nothing to do with the neo-liberal legacy of Tony Blair represented in the Labor Party, had turned to the man who was making desperately desired common sense on an out of control European Union: Nigel Farange.
Marine Le Pen’s National Front is another long stretch to compare to avowed neo-nazis such as the Ukrainian Svoboda party. Marine Le Pen’s political philosophy:
“advocates to “restore the political framework of the national community” and to implement the direct democracy which enables the “civic responsibility and the collective tie” thanks to the participation of public-spirited citizens for the decisions. The predominant political theme was the uncompromising defence of a protective and efficient State, which favours secularism, prosperity and liberties. She also denounced the “Europe of Brussels” which “everywhere imposed the destructive principles of ultra-liberalism and Free trade, at the expense of public utilities, employment, social equity and even our economic growth which became within twenty years the weakest of the world””
Compare this preceding to the facts as laid out by renown scholar Robert English, commenting on Ukraine’s Svoboda and Right Sector controlling events from Kiev:
“These are groups whose thuggish young legions still sport a swastika-like symbol, whose leaders have publicly praised many aspects of Nazism and who venerate the World War II nationalist leader Stepan Bandera, whose troops occasionally collaborated with Hitler’s and massacred thousands of Poles and Jews.
“But scarier than these parties’ whitewashing of the past are their plans for the future. They have openly advocated that no Russian language be taught in Ukrainian schools, that citizenship is only for those who pass Ukrainian language and culture exams, that only ethnic Ukrainians may adopt Ukrainian orphans and that new passports must identify their holders’ ethnicity — be it Ukrainian, Pole, Russian, Jew or other”
To conflate the Ukrainian Svoboda & Right Sector with UKIP & LePen’s National Front, labeling them collectively fascist, and this is what Dreyfuss attempts to do, lends an understanding to the conservative alliance of Putin, Farage and LePen… they all share in common being smeared by western media elements. In fact were there any truth in Dreyfuss’ assertions (and Western media generally) concerning the character of UKIP & National Front, they would be on the side of Kiev rather than Putin. In fact Marine Le Pen rejects the NDP & Golden Dawn extreme right or neo-nazi parties Dreyfuss insinuates are consistent or complicit with Le Pen’s National Front in the Europen Parliament. The more honest facts of the matter are, Germany’s support of Kiev is factually sympathetic to the neo-nazi Svoboda party, with Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democrats authentic Nazi legacy in cooperation with known neo-nazis, is well documented. Recalling the election for Ukrainian parliament are put off to Fall and neo-nazis remain in control of Ukraine in the meanwhile, Dreyfuss stating…
“the overweening propaganda from Moscow claiming that Kiev is being ruled by “fascists” is now proved to be ridiculous”
…is simply the worst sort of ‘overweening’ propaganda.
I’ll simply go on to note as an analyst of many years, what Dreyfuss presents in his article falls under the process of invention (fantasy.) On the other hand, Russian propaganda works because it employs a superior technique to western propaganda. The Russian method is minimal omissions of fact in the narrative, whereas the western method is largely broadcasting inventions. At the end of the day, when it comes to thinking people willing to cross check a few facts, the Russians omitting 10% of the reality, or less tampering with the facts, is by far superior to the western press, in this case Dreyfuss inventing 90% of the picture or better said, illusion. In fact RT (Russian TV) has been providing reliable video of the new Ukrainian National Guard (i.e. Svoboda militia) indiscriminately shooting civilians. Nothing quite like ‘seeing is believing.’ The Nation could do better but has a long ways to go, to become as competent as Russian propaganda. They cannot match the Russians when it so happens the facts more or less line up on Putin’s side… or better said, so long as the editorial board at the Nation is willing to insult people’s intelligence with the rot we see in articles like Dreyfuss presents.
Meanwhile, there are stories the Nation doesn’t touch with a ten foot pole, like how Obama is pursuing liberal/criminal policy wonk Zbigneiw Brzezinki’s ‘grand chessboard’ strategy of cornering and attempting to isolate Russia. Or how creating insurgencies prop up the western economies and how Ukraine plays in that.
You’ve heard of ‘you are what you eat’? The Nation would prefer ‘you are what you think.’ Unfortunately, in the case of the USA supported putsch regime in Ukraine, they’d like you to think along the lines of George Orwell’s observation:
“In the case of a word like DEMOCRACY, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of régime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using the word if it were tied down to any one meaning. Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way”
The Nation, per Orwell’s observation, demonstrates itself a consciously dishonest publication
Former FBI Coleen Rowley on Counterfeit Coin: “Wow, very well put and comprehensive. I tend to agree with your assessments“
Deep State series, part five of eight
COUNTERFEIT COIN
(The alliance of economics & counter-insurgency)
“If the Soviet Union were to disappear off the face of the map, the United States would quickly seek out new enemies to justify its own military-industrial complex” -CIA officer John Stockwell, 1980
What I had learned based on studying my special forces operations assignment is, counter-insurgency does not work. Insurgency is largely sustained by social inequities, and counter-insurgency, more often than not, props up the status quo. The result? Prolonged civil war with attending process of radicalization in the populace. So it should come as no surprise the U.S. military’s counter-insurgency [COIN] manual’s ‘don’t create more enemies than you eliminate’ is factually unobtainable. Consequently, when the manual states…
“The conclusion of any counterinsurgency effort is primarily dependent on the host nation and the people who reside in that nation. Ultimately, every society has to provide solutions to its own problems. As such, one of the Army and Marine Corps’ primary roles in counterinsurgency is to enable the host nation.”
…is a classic case of what George Orwell aptly called ‘doublethink.’ USA supported counter-insurgency is the farthest possible thing from allowing societies solve its own problems, particularly when a society’s grassroots insurgency has determined the incumbent powers cannot be otherwise influenced to social equity. The resultant counter-insurgency effect of radicalizing of social elements with the propping up of corrupt regimes, metastasizes and leads to events such as ‘global jihad’, example given.
In my day, our Special Operations Forces had not yet become pervasively criminalized but we did see the beginning of this process when Special Forces elements coordinated with the CIA and PHOENIX. Apart from this initial perversion, we saw ourselves more along the lines of an elite Peace Corps working the most hazardous territories of a Cold War world. Critical to our mission was pacification of populace in the areas we worked, and pacification is and was a straightforward word. We worked to bring peace to neighborhoods in conflicts. John Wayne stereotype aside, the military aspects were honest endeavor to provide self-defense training to remote villages with an objective the populace could not be easily exploited by irregular militia, but that was never going to be accomplished in any case, except that we understood and respected and even integrated to the local customs and culture. Our primary work was focused on action anthropology, providing health care and education in an indigenous social context.
That we had elite, lethal training, was primarily survival oriented, yes, there were the occasional ‘special operation’ to perhaps decapitate the leadership of a particular guerrilla group or undertake sabotage behind enemy lines in the course of our work, examples given, but this was the exception, not the rule.
Primarily our superior skills were required to operate small teams in areas where we might meet with considerably stronger numerical force. The highly honed and elite skills of the 1960s and 1970s Green Berets teams were more often than not, more than equal to a larger irregular force. If vastly out numbered, we knew how to inflict savage and costly casualties on our pursuers in the course of evasion. In our pacification work, Action Anthropology …
“committed to collaborative work, social justice, and a pragmatic view of social scientific knowledge … envisioned the possibility of simultaneously advancing such knowledge and helping the subjects of ethnographic fieldwork articulate and accomplish their own goals”
… was the norm of the day. We integrated to our human and social environment. We were armed educators, medical providers and social workers. We were not primarily meant to be offensive, to the contrary, restraint was a big piece of our discipline and training. Cowboy mentalities were not tolerated.
It is quite clear things have changed away from this ideal (and somewhat self-propagandized) focus, dramatically, for the military applications of special operations forces, in the approximately four decades since Vietnam. Firstly, one must consider a flipped circumstance; the Cold War world, or one might say the previous ‘bi-polar’ world, was a world where the rug had since been pulled out from numerous societies stability. Into the vacuum created by the dismantling of the Soviet Union and its many aligned satellite states political structures around the world, greed is stepping in as the western democracies ‘capitalize’ on this circumstance. Consequently, as opposed to a primary focus on the ‘liberation’ of oppressed peoples (recalling the Special Forces motto ‘De Opresso Liber’ or ‘liberate the oppressed’) from totalitarian rule, the actuality has become the reverse- openly propping up corrupt regimes whose relationship to us is one of inter-exploitation. Example would be mining Corporations and the Toronto Stock Exchange:
The corrupt regimes handing us (in the western democracies) raw resources on the cheap are no less dependent on us than we are dependent on corrupt regimes to keep the value of our stocks competitive. It is a trap, where if the western democracies allow for social equity to be realized, and must pay a fair market value for resources consequently, the value of stocks will drop in the market ‘adjustment’ to the new circumstance. In a situation of many cases of exploitation, concerning many nations and hundreds of stocks at the exchanges in Frankfurt, London, Toronto and Wall Street (among other exchanges), a drop in these values reflecting a fair market value wealth redistribution necessary to achieve social stability in the developing nations, would also see a dramatic drop in the stocks of the military-industrial sector which is inter-dependent with the corruption and associated expenditures on counter-insurgency necessary to prop up the corrupt regimes providing resources on the cheap.
As this process accelerates and widens, recently the example is Ukraine with Western democracies intelligence agencies laundering operations with professional mercenaries assisting the new regime in Kiev with COIN tactics employed in the ethnic Russian areas of the south and east, this raises a question; at what point has the corruption become so endemic to the cycle, that to break the cycle of corruption would collapse the economic engines of the western democracies, which have become dependent on arms sales feeding associated aggression required to prop up the (profitable to us) necessarily unstable, corrupt regimes?
Another critical consideration is, now that ‘liberty’ is become an increasingly obvious, patent lie (no longer a ‘half truth’ of previous era), what will be the end result of a power grab by corporate elites dedicated to maintaining the status quo?
“Mr. Snowden has brought home to us that, while we Americans do not yet live in a police state or tyranny, we are well along in building the infrastructure on which either could be instantly erected if our leaders decided to do so. No longer protected by the law, our freedoms now depend on the self-restraint of men and women in authority, many of them in uniform. History protests that if one builds a turnkey totalitarian state, those who hold the keys will eventually turn them” -former U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia Chas Freeman
With the Soviet Union no longer a justifiable geopolitical boogeyman to frighten us into vast arms and ‘security’ expenditures, ‘terror’ has replaced our past Cold War world’s enemies. But nearly everywhere you see a relationship to terror, you will also find a history of corrupt, authoritarian regimes propped up by the western democracies.
1) Authoritarian regime x resultant civil unrest x resultant hyper regime repression = insurgency
2) Insurgency x counter-insurgency = long term civil war
3) Long term civil war x resultant radicalized population metastasizes into terror and spreads
4) Western societies, bled by taxes and political lies propping up the status quo for what amounts to the sole benefit of western corporate oligarchs, become destabilized.
This returns us to the lie of COIN. The factual deceit in counter insurgency is, it must propagate, or be part and parcel of a larger web of lies (or self-deceits) in any case. Whether consciously or unconsciously, it cannot be admitted the wealth of the western democracies depends on exploitations, effective enslavement of entire societies, to prop up our so-called ‘liberties’ and associated economic freedoms which must be severely curtailed in the event of the actual fair, equitable and lawful redistribution of wealth required to cease the oppression of peoples around the world. People with eyes open call our system ’empire.’ People who live in illusion call our system ‘democracy’, however it is necessary to build a police state to maintain our so-called ‘democracy’ because of the raw hatred or ‘terror’ the system generates. And at the end of the day, the only meaningful vote is in the corporate boardroom and that does not bode well for our future because:
“In any democracy, ethics, self restraint, tolerance and honesty will always take a second seat to narcissism, avarice, bigotry & persecution, if only because people who play by the rules in any democracy are at a disadvantage to those who easily subvert the rules to their own advantage” –Ronald’s Maxim
Our poster child for this militarized society is General Petraeus. It is common political knowledge in Washington DC, that President Obama had appointed General Petraeus to head the CIA as a means of sidelining the General’s political ambitions over serious concerns Petraeus would hook up with the likes of Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachman in a run against Obama for the presidency in 2012. Either way you have it, a commander-in-chief, whether a military veteran or not, is a sword that can cut two ways. Obama’s naiveté in military affairs, having never served, is the 2nd worst possible circumstance in an America where naked fundamentalist ambition has overtaken the leadership of American military command structures, outside an out and out fundamentalist president. That Obama would, as a matter of political expediency, appoint Petraeus to head up the CIA with its historically out of control Operational Division working in close concert with the radicalized and criminalized Christian extremist special operations forces of today’s American military…
…was simply asking for disaster. General Petraeus was key [together with Robert Gates] in convincing Obama to radically beef up the USA’s special operations forces, at a time it was already decided the overall troop numbers would have to be reduced.
General Petraeus has had a close association with special operations forces throughout his career. When Petraeus had been appointed to DCI [Director of Central Intelligence or CIA] Admiral William H McRaven, overall boss of the special operations forces which these days are routinely assigned to CIA operational missions, had requested his forces be allowed to operate outside the traditional Department of Defense channels. This was, no doubt, a sleight-of-hand grab for these elite forces away from normal supervision via established Department of Defense structures, and away from any significant oversight by Congress, by Admiral McRaven and his close professional associate, then CIA Director Petraeus.
The myth of General Petraeus in the public purview is a demonstrable tactical lie. In fact the ‘surge that turned around the war in Iraq’ for which he became famous, was at best a deceit along the lines of a shell game or bait and switch. General Petraeus beefed up the American force, momentarily disrupted the insurgency with an all out push that could not be sustained in any case, and then pulled the bulk of the American forces back to their bases and took the Americans, for the first time, largely out of public circulation before the insurgents in Iraq could regroup. It is this removing the American soldiers from the everyday Iraqi life which had dramatically dropped the violence in Iraq, nothing more. The same could have been accomplished in 2004, and honestly at that, were it not for literally crusading extremist neo-con commanders and secular officers afraid to speak out and challenge the status quo at the CIA and Pentagon, to call a spade a spade, a career ending move. It is truly Faustian, if you speak out your career is over and you have been weeded from the ranks which only become more Christian extremist with the favored or ‘blessed’ replacements, if you keep your mouth shut, it all evolves towards fascism regardless.
Moving over to Afghanistan, notoriously there have been many special operations forces crimes, inclusive of attacking weddings and other incidents where fleeing women and kids had been shot in their backs, cold blooded murders. We pay the Afghans compensation but the root problem of anti-Islam fundamentalism in the American military is never effectively addressed and the hate for the Americans only spreads. General Petraeus had a large hand in keeping these American special operations independent of NATO, effectively exercising impunity and generating a strengthened Taliban when the Americans are seen as a worse curse. This is today’s COIN in action.
General Petraeus had been the hand that guided today’s COIN manual creation, one of the most, perhaps THE most influential military publication in modern American military strategy. When testifying to Congress, where it is essential the success of a counter-insurgency strategy lie be maintained, the COIN manual stating…
“The general rule for the use of force for the counterinsurgents is ‘do not create more enemies than you eliminate with your action’”
…cannot be squared with General Petraeus ties to CIA dirty wars…
…and bringing in veteran professional killers to oversee secret torture centers and and running death squads in Iraq as established by the (above linked) Guardian/BBC Arabic exposé. But that is the real nature of the militarized beast that would rule our society.
“perhaps the severest criticism of U.S. counterinsurgency doctrine derives from actual record of counterinsurgency programs. The continuing violence and instability in Iraq and Afghanistan would seem to indicate that existing counterinsurgency doctrine is either misconceived or that, for whatever reason, it cannot be effectively implemented”
Aftergood sets out two premise in his conclusion, ‘misconceived’ and ‘cannot be effectively implemented.’ Based on my own Special Forces operations assignment, and related studies in social psychology, I can make the case it is not one or the other, but is both. Counter-insurgency in any case, creates more enemies than it eliminates for the very fact of its inter-dependence with propping up western corporate capitalism’s profit line with necessary support for corrupt and authoritarian regimes. The idea of countering ‘terror’ with COIN is a lie.
Similar to Gladio, the American COIN doctrine is a virus that has escaped the lab. Essentially, COIN generates the terror it self-justifies for its existence, practically speaking, a military-industrial employment insurance package that means you will never be out of a job. A practical application of this is, COIN provides the very skills used to fight insurgency, to the insurgents themselves.
Shia death squads set up under Petreaus command in Iraq, followed on with General Petraeus responsible for training and arming the so-called Sunni ‘awakening councils‘, strengthened al-Qaida in Iraq & Levant (now operating in Syria and Iraq under the banner of ISIS since breaking with al-Qaida) empowering both parties to the civil war that followed the USA’s exit from Iraq:
“Crazy as it may seem, to an [American military trained but now unemployed] Iraqi who’s been left high and dry to fend for himself by his “liberators,” killing his fellow citizens to feed his family is a viable option. Al Qaeda knows this, and is taking full advantage of the situation”
Reiterating the fact General Petraeus ‘surge’ in Iraq appeared to work on paper for the reason the U.S withdrew to its bases after, and violence dropped because the Americans were out of public exposure for the first time since invasion (and why the Iranian aligned Iraqi Shia cleric al-Sadr declared his ceasefire, relating to the Americans) points to the insurgency having had national roots in a society where all sides wanted the Americans out, first and primarily. In the mix of this, the so-called ‘awakening councils’ put into practice by the Petraeus written COIN doctrine (no matter if it were initiated by subordinate generals on location in Iraq during Petraeus interim assignment at the Pentagon) is what eventually empowered today’s ISIS at the apex of Iraq’s widening civil war, a civil war initiated by Petraeus earlier (1st Iraq tour), when setting up the Shia death squads, he had trained al-Sadr’s militia (as documented in the the above linked Guardian/BBC Arabic exposé “Searching for Steele”.) COIN training, consequently, had been responsible for the deaths of American soldiers in Iraq from both Shia and Sunni elements. Both had sent numerous members to be trained in the two programs. The same COIN model has been taken advantage of by radicalized insurgents in Syria, where special operations training has been offered to the ‘opposition’ and now you see the fruits of this spilled back into Iraq (again.)
The Petraeus COIN doctrine presently, enthusiastically, embraced by Obama (not only by Bush and too many other neo-conservatives and neo-liberals to count) is the tool of choice with side effect responsible for what you see coming apart at the seams (blow-back) from Ukraine to Iraq to Africa, and ultimately is policy of military-industrial corporate boards and used for propping up stock values from Frankfurt to London to Toronto to Wall Street. Also, it would appear the several western democracies military and intelligence agencies have elements answering to corporate boards as opposed to executive or legislative oversight with strong evidence this has gone on for a very long time.
Destabilized nations are ripe for rip-off, and the recipe is, desperate for cash related to ‘security’, corrupt regimes propped up by the western democracies are inclined to sell their resources on the cheap and use the proceeds to buy military equipment necessary to beat back insurgency and stay in power, so the money they received from selling their resources to the western democracies are returned to the western democracies military-industrial coffers (noting it is not only the USA in this game.) This model has been initiated in Ukraine and if there were successful regime change accomplished in Syria, you would see it happen there, all a criminal enterprise heavily subsidized by the American taxpayer (not to mention soldiers deaths in the thousands) to the benefit of the stockholder bottom line (profit.)
If you wonder whether the western democracies corporate body might learn its lesson from having trained al-Qaida and other Salafist militia (preceding notes on the ‘awakening councils’), the answer is obviously NO. Previous to this, the CIA had employed American special operations forces for provision of advanced training to Mexican military officers who’d ultimately defected to the drug cartels and it was not long before they’d formed a cartel of their own, Los Zetas:
“Los Zetas’ training as a local version of the Green Berets constitutes their foremost asset. In cooperation with their U.S. counterparts, the Mexican military created the Gafes in mid-1990s. Foreign specialists, including Americans, French, and Israelis, instructed members of this elite unit in rapid deployment, aerial assaults, marksmanship, ambushes, intelligence collection, counter-surveillance techniques, prisoner rescues, sophisticated communications, and the art of intimidation”
And now, following on having trained al-Qaida in Iraq & Los Zetas in Mexico as special operations commandos who in turn can train their own future generations of recruits, the USA is repeating the same behavior in Africa:
“The secretive program, financed in part with millions of dollars in classified Pentagon spending and carried out by trainers, including members of the Army’s Green Berets and Delta Force, was begun last year to instruct and equip hundreds of handpicked commandos in Libya, Niger, Mauritania and Mali”
Epilogue
Restated in the simplest possible terms, the USA’s ‘vital national interests’ (and western democracies generally) is euphemism for corporate welfare, corporate welfare is all about the bottom line (profit) and profit historically has happened when we take raw material at gunpoint from disadvantaged nations. Modern corporate neo-colonialism creates social unrest and consequent fighting back which has evolved to ‘terror’, which in turn strengthens the market place in the ‘security’ or arms industry. The overthrow of Gaddafi (for reasons including he wasn’t buying high end weapons from France, following his ‘rehabilitation’) started brush fires (e.g. Mali) with his now unemployed mercenaries, ‘lost’ weapons flow and western trained guerrillas/insurgents moved on to instances of ‘jihad’ the western powers feel must be in turn stamped out. This strengthens the cycle of spreading ‘terror’ which again strengthens the outlay for security, propping up western economies in what has become a war of civilizations.
In the case of Djibouti and a one billion dollar USA drones base built there, there is yet a French Foreign Legion presence hanging on from colonial era with the region surrounding nearby Somalia in process of destabilizing since Charles Grassley’s efforts provided a vast arsenal of American weapons to the regime of Mohammed Said Barre nearly 30 years ago. Barre in turn employed those weapons to wreak a biblical terror on his own nation. This has impacted from Ethiopia to Kenya and beyond.
The result at home? ‘Terror’ propaganda leading to the loss of civil liberties and increasing consolidation of the corporate-power corrupt over the vast and spreading malignancy of the entire cycle. This fact can only lead to our national demise when you factor in the western democracies own ‘jihadis’, i.e. extreme ‘Christian Taliban’ personalities attracted to the ‘security’ business. Now days the Pentagon is fundamentalist Christian crusader central and has moved from ‘the only good Indian is a dead Indian’ to ‘the only good Muslim is a dead Muslim’ as a matter of policy in a pursuit of world-wide “manifest destiny.” And so reality is created for us and reality is pointed to literal Armageddon, the consequence of living beyond our means.
The other side of this coin is, if the arms and related ‘security’ expenditures were halted, the resulting jobs loss would finish collapsing the western democracies economic engines, where the armaments industries are a critical component of the dynamic propping up our infrastructure.
What are the chances the western democratic leaders will surrender ego to reality and begin dismantling this hydra? Not good when reality is we should be moving towards construction of changed climate Hobbit burrows to survive.
What’s happening isn’t rocket science, but it is a trap
If you want stronger evidence for the criminal insanity of the western democracies counter-insurgency policies (a core component of what’s known as ‘humanitarian violence‘) you likely need psychiatric help-
*
The USA’s criminal military-industrial complex policies are certainly consistent; judging by the 1935 speech of General Smedley Butler (‘war is a racket’ that has gone on for a very long time.)
A former Special Forces Sergeant of Operations and Intelligence, Ronald Thomas West is a retired paralegal/investigator (living in exile) whose work focus had been anti-corruption and human rights. Ronald is published in International Law as a layman (The Mueller-Wilson Report, co-authored with Dr Mark D Cole) and has been adjunct professor of American Constitutional Law at Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany (for English credit, summer semester 2008.) Ronald’s formal educational background is primarily social psychology.
The proposal in this essay “In fact it is perfectly possible by the time Snowden had traveled to Moscow with Harrison, he may no longer have been in possession of the documents at all” in fact had been almost immediately established as the case in fact, when Snowden stated he was no longer in possession of any NSA documents when he’d traveled to Russia, in his Moscow interview with NBC
It is a near impossible task to try and wipe egg off someone’s face, that is, if that someone doesn’t care to acknowledge the facts, if the facts shake their foundation in reality or they are simply willfully stubborn. When egg yolk has dried on ceramic, those of you who know how to wash dishes will know to use fingernails, or risk scratches and look for the steel wool. So this analysis is going to be abrasive to the idealists in the peace movement and associated journalists concerned with social justice. And it is an attempt to pull Glenn Greenwald’s chestnuts out of the fire, before they are reduced to ashes by counter-espionage and damage control spooks. Good luck with that, is the cynical admonition to myself, because this one might get eggs thrown at me with a vengeance.
Our present story begins precisely 11 months ago, 23 June 2013, when The Guardian had reported concerning the WikiLeaks supposed (reported widely in ‘mainstream’ media) ‘legal expert’ accompanying Edward Snowden, Sarah Harrison, on Snowden’s odyssey to Moscow:
“Despite her closeness to Assange, Harrison may seem a strange choice to accompany Snowden, as unlike several people close to WikiLeaks – most notably human rights lawyer Jennifer Robinson – Harrison has no legal qualifications or background”
Yeah, that’s likely why Snowden faxed perfectly useless asylum requests all over the world from the Moscow airport, not realizing (technically speaking, such as in an embassy) he had to be standing on the territory of the nation he would wish to acquire asylum in. But it gets by far more interesting. As I’d pointed out in my piece ‘WikiLeaks & Spy Agencies‘…
“In espionage [or counter-espionage], there are three basic means of penetrating and/or using a hostile organization to one’s advantage:
1) Turning an employee through some means such as blackmail, sex, bribery or appeal to a psychological weakness such as working on someone’s conscience or ideology and convince them to become your organization’s asset (agent/traitor)
2) Placing your own officer within the organization as an employee (spy)
3) Using psychology and disinformation to convince the organization’s staff to work to your advantage and/or commit acts against its own interests (false flag/sale)
Typically there would be each of these approaches assessed individually and in various combinations and/or variants when planning an operation. WikiLeaks would be vulnerable to this on several counts”
…now, we will look at this a bit more closely in a related development of the past several days.
On 19 May, 2014, the new venture of Greenwald (among others) ‘The Intercept’ published a piece based on the Snowden NSA documents, concerning MYSTIC sub-project SOMALGET, detailing how entire nations are being prepared for TOTAL surveillance of phone traffic, inclusive of all audio conversation. The apparent ‘pilot program’ of laboratory test animals is the Bahamas and an unnamed nation (in the intercept article.)
^NSA illustration via The Intercept
Almost immediately, Julian Assange (@WikiLeaks) and Greenwald were in a ‘twitter’ spat over Greenwald with-holding the 2nd nations name, Assange claiming Greenwald’s rationale for following long established journalism protocol to protect at risk persons by with-holding information was essentially selling out. AND THEN, WikiLeaks (Assange) threatened to reveal the nation’s name, if The Intercept and Greenwald refused to do so .. and subsequently named Afghanistan. What we see here, on its face, is brilliant counter-espionage work, of a nature so serious a threat to Greenwald (and others) journalism at The Intercept, as to appear to send Greenwald to Moscow to meet with Snowden, or so rumor would have it:
^Destination Moscow (in closing remarks by hostess)
The problem with WikiLeaks naming the unnamed country? Now, the ‘mainstream’ (CIA manipulated) media can claim in full on attack on Greenwald and the others at The Intercept, these journalists have no credibility insofar as security of content concerning the NSA documents in their possession. As well, there most certainly will be assessment of possibility to link Greenwald (and others at The Intercept) to any criminal case being developed against Assange. Touche, NSA! Counter-espionage has drawn blood.
Now to the question .. how did WikiLeaks acquire the name of Afghanistan? WikiLeaks isn’t saying. But first suspicion would naturally fall on close Assange confidant Sarah Harrison who’d been with Snowden ’24/7′ for weeks while Snowden was sorting out where he might be able to safely stay (having to ultimately settle on Russia.) I believe this is the least likely scenario, however we will go there first. It’s as simple as Sarah Harrison would have stole the documents from Snowden. If that were the case, WikiLeaks has all of the Snowden NSA disclosures and they don’t dare admit they’d violated Snowden’s trust. If Greenwald is indeed in Moscow meeting with Snowden, it would go to exploring this possibility. But I doubt this is what happened, not because WikiLeaks would not have stolen the documents if they could have, but because I expect Snowden was smart enough to secure the documents throughout Sarah Harrison’s stay with him, not every possible ‘honey-pot’ or using a woman in seduction for operational purposes is going to be successful. Whether Harrison were Assange’s mole or a British intelligence agent or double agent, Snowden was not a good candidate to fall for this sort of operation when it is demonstrable Snowden’s own girlfriend had no idea what he was up to in the months and days leading up to his revelations and flight. The man is well disciplined in the rules of personal secrecy attending espionage. In fact it is perfectly possible by the time Snowden had traveled to Moscow with Harrison, he may no longer have been in possession of the documents at all. But the brilliant aspect of this, from the point of view of counter-espionage and exploiting public perception is, it will appear the documents were not secured and Greenwald & Laura Poitras can be pilloried as irresponsible and endangering the USA’s national security, inclusive of putting lives at risk, possibly to a point of building a criminal case. Meanwhile, if Greenwald had traveled to Moscow, he is barking up the wrong tree.
The more likely scenario is quite straightforward. The NSA arranged to ‘leak’ the information concerned to WikiLeaks, for clear intent of going after Greenwald and The Intercept with PsyOps, sowing distrust and misleading the principal players in a counter-operation that will be highly publicized propaganda.
So, one might ask, how can leaking the nation’s name, Afghanistan, almost certainly laundered via some CIA embed or ‘social justice’ source known to WikiLeaks, square with the USA purportedly concerned for the lives put at risk? Here is where the cynicism of evil plays in the world of spy craft; people at the top, certainly inclusive of Obama’s CIA Director John ‘Kill List‘ Brennan, NSA associates and ‘friends’ play the game of ‘trade-offs.’ The people whose lives are ‘at risk’ due to the disclosures will be relatively low level assets, easily expendable technicians. They are suddenly fodder for the greater gain of going after Greenwald and damaging The Intercept. It is actually as simple as that. If some of these technicians are killed, so much the better from the point of view at the top, that will be frosting on the cake of working to destroy (and likely pursue a frame-up with criminal charges) those persons who initially broke the Snowden story and facilitated the NSA documents release.
To Glenn & Co at The Intercept, welcome to the real world of spies.
Robert Parry and the Relativity of Truth
(Poison Fruit)
I’m not a fan of Robert Parry. This is not a disclaimer, rather it is a healthy aversion to disinformation that comes of both training and experience. What put me on to Robert Parry was an article at Consortium News on the history of the American ‘framers’ of our constitution, reproduced elsewhere (notably at ‘truth-out’), which I took some time to dissect and rebut. Looking back at the article and with only a few strokes of the keyboard, I notice Parry fancies himself an American constitutional scholar.
“In other words, the Right’s modern interpretation of the Founding Principles was not shared by the key Framers of the Constitution. Instead, the Right’s position on the Constitution apes the opposition to the Constitution by the Anti-Federalists, who warned that the new federal structure would subordinate the states to the central government and endanger slavery in the South.
“Despite that real history, today’s Right has largely succeeded in distorting the Founding Narrative to convince millions of lightly educated Americans that – by joining with the Tea Party – they are defending the Constitution as the Framers devised it when, in reality, they are channeling the views of those who fiercely opposed the Constitution”
Parry is hammering on disingenuous theme of the American federalists versus anti-federalists, essentially overlooking the dynamic between the two which had led to a COMPROMISE between the factions. Parry altogether omits what that compromise had been meant to accomplish, the ratification of our federal constitution with added checks on central power by avenue of an agreed upon ‘Bill of Rights’ to be subsequently and separately submitted for ratification subsequent to our constitution’s adoption by the several states. Parry writes as though these two philosophies were mutually exclusive phenomena but in fact they’d been fused into one document by separate but closely related process.
I write in my rebuttal of Parry’s presumed authority on the issue:
“I somehow doubt the anti-federalist 4th amendment concerning privacy had anything to do with propping up slavery, a given example of motivation in the anti-federalists’ actual intentions. Or the prohibition of a bill of attainder. Or the right to petition for redress. Or the right to confront your accuser. To name but a few provisions of the first through eighth amendments”
I’d been adjunct professor of American constitutional law at one of Europe’s most prestigious universities, Johannes Guttenberg University, and at the university’s law school at that (Summer semester 2008.) As well, I received high marks as instructor. That doesn’t happen without a firm historical understanding of our founding document’s underpinnings. And outside the religious right, I’d never before seen such rank historical revisionism in relation to our constitution as that put forward by Robert Parry. Beyond irony, Parry’s patent disinformation regarding our founding document is aimed at the very religious right whose disinformation he attacks (with his own disinformation.)
But this subsequent article is not as much about Parry’s disseminating patent lies concerning the origins and intent of the USA’s founding charter, as much as the preceding influencing myself having a bit more close look on his reporting concerning Ukraine. The constitutional issue is the material that had placed Robert Parry’s work in my sights.
In this essay, we will briefly look at two of Robert Parry’s recent works on Ukraine; “Ukraine’s ‘Dr Strangelove’ Reality” & “What Obama Can Do To Save Ukraine”, and distill further instance where he misleads his many readers.
In the mentioned ‘Dr Strangelove’ article by Parry, he puts forward a seemingly reasonable assessment of the situation in Kiev in relation to the neo-nazi element but nonetheless falls short:
“Though clearly a minority, Ukraine’s neo-Nazis remain a potent force that is well-organized, well-motivated and prone to extreme violence, whether throwing firebombs at police in the Maidan or at ethnic Russians trapped in a building in Odessa.
“As vengeance now seeks vengeance across Ukraine, this Nazi imperative will be difficult to hold down, much as Dr. Strangelove struggled to stop his arm from making a “Heil Hitler” salute”
The problem with this closing assessment is suggesting this “minority” element will be difficult to control (clearly true), without overtly stating the neo-nazi elements are without question purposely empowered by the regime in Kiev (and by clear implication, the USA.) I am saying the neo-nazis have been deliberately unleashed and Parry misses this (or deliberately glosses it over.) Ok, so this is a strong statement on my part. But if you take time to look deeply into Svoboda with its five ministries in Kiev (Parry counts four, perhaps he doesn’t count the deputy Prime Minister), it is clear this is NOT a neo-nazi ‘minority’ playing in the regime, it is according to a honest research a neo-nazi empowered coalition:
“One of the “Big Three” political parties behind the protests is the ultra-nationalist Svoboda, whose leader, Oleh Tyahnybok, has called for the liberation of his country from the “Muscovite-Jewish mafia.” After the 2010 conviction of the Nazi death camp guard John Demjanjuk for his supporting role in the death of nearly 30,000 people at the Sobibor camp, Tyahnybok rushed to Germany to declare him a hero who was “fighting for truth.” In the Ukrainian parliament, where Svoboda holds an unprecedented 37 seats, Tyahnybok’s deputy Yuriy Mykhalchyshyn is fond of quoting Joseph Goebbels – he has even founded a think tank originally called “the Joseph Goebbels Political Research Center.” According to Per Anders Rudling, a leading academic expert on European neo-fascism, the self-described “socialist nationalist” Mykhalchyshyn is the main link between Svoboda’s official wing and neo-Nazi militias like Right Sector”
I have a larger problem with the second mentioned article by Parry; “What Obama Can Do To Save Ukraine” and its suggestions that mislead the ordinary reader. In this ‘Ukraine light’ analysis, Parry quotes an ‘unnamed diplomat’ as though the diplomat’s words were gospel:
“I was told by one senior international diplomat who was on the scene that after the Feb. 22 putsch, Western officials scrambled to help the shaken parliament cobble together a new government to avoid having a bunch of unsavory right-wing thugs become the de facto rulers of Kiev”
But in fact that is exactly what we have; a bunch of unsavory right wing thugs HAVE become the de facto rulers in Kiev. In an otherwise seeming thoughtful dissecting of the New York Times biased coverage, Parry slips in an unattributed quote that softens his attack on false narrative. The reader without training in psychological ploy can take this preceding quote delivered by Parry to mean somehow the ‘Western officials’ managed to circumvent a de facto neo-nazi rule when in fact they had not.
Parry follows his preceding with:
“that means that the legitimacy of the acting government in Kiev is open to debate, not a flat-fact, as the Times would have you believe”
MISLEADING CONCLUSION. There should be no “open to debate” because it has been clearly established the coup d’état regime in Kiev is patently neo-nazi empowered and the real “flat-fact” is the Kiev regime must therefore be illegitimate, without equivocation. What Parry has done here, when attacking the New York Times false narrative, is to feed the reader alternative false narrative. This is precisely what Parry had done when attacking the constitutional narrative of the religious-right; noted at the beginning of this essay.
Following on this section of the Parry article, he allows a very reasonable assessment of Putin but then goes off into some high philosophical moral argument as if Obama could find in his ‘higher-self’ the courage of a JFK. I cannot help but wonder how it is Robert Parry could give a fair assessment of Putin and then blow it with proposing Obama has the wherewithal to discover in himself character traits he has never once demonstrated after six years in office. This is pure Obama fantasy fed to a public that has been fed Obama fantasy from the get go.
And now the clincher, Parry’s concluding paragraph:
“The question now regarding Ukraine and the possibility of a new Cold War is whether Obama can pick up Kennedy’s torch of peaceful understanding – and see the world through the eyes of the ethnic Russians in Donetsk as well as the pro-European youth in Kiev – recognizing the legitimate concerns and the understandable fears of both”
In fact “the pro-European youth in Kiev”, do not play in the equation, at all, in the present circumstance, in fact no one does other than now regime integrated neo-nazis:
“An Anarchist group called AntiFascist Union Ukraine attempted to join the Euromaidan demonstrations but found it difficult to avoid threats of violence and imprecations from the gangs of neo-Nazis roving the square. “They called the Anarchists things like Jews, blacks, Communists,” one of its members said. “There weren’t even any Communists, that was just an insult”” (read it at salon.com)
What Robert Parry does with his journalism is string people along with ‘hope’ that has no foundation in reality. He softens the geo-political facts in relation to the criminal acts of the USA and deflects attention from the most critical points. The facts are, Obama will do nothing to effectively control the Siamese twin that is the CIA-Department of State and the horrors it is unleashing in Ukraine. The factual reality is, neo-nazi rule in Kiev, thinly disguised, will be utilized to deliberately provoke Putin endlessly, until the entire caper implodes/explodes in one way or another. To call it any other way is simply dishonest.
Why isn’t the ‘Christian al Qaida’ embedded at the Pentagon (not to mention at CIA, Department of State, et al) focused on in the work of Parry? It’s not only highly relevant, it’s not as though every element of information pointing to this severe danger is buried at sea, any good investigator can turn up the ample facts. As well, I’d been asked about Parry’s past investigative journalism (Iran Contra & the 1980 ‘October Surprise’) apparently not squaring with his support for the official version of 9/11… my reply:
“I’d simply note ‘truth’ cannot be entirely suppressed in every instance, in which case it must be ‘managed.’ Perhaps Parry came to the conclusion he did not wish to be ‘webbed’ (Gary Webb shot himself in the head TWICE, superman could do that…) Insofar as the official version of 9/11, Building 7 doesn’t fit the narrative. One need not have answers as to what actually happened to grasp there can be no honest embrace of the official version. What I’ve noticed about Parry and his bosom buddy [Ray] McGovern is, they consistently ‘soften’ hard facts and avoid taking the reader into the more dangerous back alleys where you’re more likely to find the real dirt”
Parry had poo-pooed when supporting the incredible government fantasies fed the public on the collapse of Building 7:
“After the fire and devastation spread next door to Building Seven, Bush’s team also detonated explosives there to bring down that smaller tower”
Ignoring independent professional investigators and established structural science, a by far more far-fetched scenario than the conspiracy theorists put forward, is the government scenario Parry supports; Building 7 is the only major modern steel reinforced, concrete pillar supported structure in the world to collapse from a mediocre fire, essentially claiming Building 7 died of fright:
Parry observes in his Obama article:
“Not only would Obama have to come down off the U.S. “high horse” and admit that his own administration has been guilty of spinning the facts – waging “information warfare” – but he’d have to recognize that Putin’s cooperation is essential to bringing this increasingly bloody crisis under control. Obama would also have to admit that Putin was not the cause of the Ukraine mess”
To become a trustworthy source of information, Robert Parry would have to do something remarkably similar; admit his own patent disinformation. A good beginning would be retracting his several articles on the federalist vs anti-federalist founders’ original intent in relation to our constitution and move on to endorsing Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth
^ But still needs to clean up his act and fire whoever is feeding him patent bs”
The comment was taken down by the site before the day was far gone, so there is no indication of open to a wider understanding, rather continuing deceptive narrative (at the least.) Returning to Parry’s attack on the anti-federalist founders, there is no more insidious example of psychological ploy to undermine American civil liberties than to subliminally associate the founding principles underpinning our historic freedoms with slavery; by a research narrowly focused on the bigotry of the founders’ era and in the same moment ignoring the far greater sentiment of noble intent. Robert Parry does exactly that.
*
Related:
Poison Fruit (collection) Robert Parry’s false flag journalism
*
Ronald Thomas West is a former U.S. intelligence professional
Ronald Thomas West 