Putin: The Man Who Stopped Washington’s Regime Change Rampage

Source

shutterstock_650275792

 

“It is essential to provide conditions for creative labor and economic growth at a pace that would put an end to the division of the world into permanent winners and permanent losers. The rules of the game should give the developing economies at least a chance to catch up with those we know as developed economies. We should work to level out the pace of economic development, and brace up backward countries and regions so as to make the fruit of economic growth and technological progress accessible to all. Particularly, this would help to put an end to poverty, one of the worst contemporary problems.” Vladimir Putin, President Russian Federation, Meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club

Putin wants to end poverty? Putin wants to stimulate economic growth in developing countries? Putin wants to change the system that divides the world into “permanent winners and losers”? But, how can that be, after all, Putin is bad, Putin is a “KGB thug”, Putin is the “new Hitler”?

American liberals would be surprised to know that Putin actually supports many of the same social issues that they support. For example, the Russian President is not only committed to lifting living standards and ending poverty, he’s also a big believer in universal healthcare which is free under the current Russian Constitution. Naturally, the Russian system has its shortcomings, but there has been significant progress under Putin who has dramatically increased the budget, improved treatment and widened accessibility. Putin believes that healthcare should be a universal human right. Here’s what he said at the annual meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club:

“Another priority is global healthcare…. All people in the world, not only the elite, should have the right to healthy, long and full lives. This is a noble goal. In short, we should build the foundation for the future world today by investing in all priority areas of human development.” (Vladimir Putin, President Russian Federation, Meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club)

How many “liberal” politicians in the US would support a recommendation like Putin’s? Not very many. The Democrats are much more partial to market-based reforms like Obamacare that guarantee an ever-increasing slice of the pie goes to the giant HMOs and the voracious pharmaceutical companies. The Dems no longer make any attempt to promote universal healthcare as a basic human right. They’ve simply thrown in the towel and moved on to other issues.

Many Americans would find Putin’s views on climate change equally surprising. Here’s another clip from the Valdai speech:

“Ladies and gentlemen, one more issue that shall affect the future of the entire humankind is climate change. … I suggest that we take a broader look at the issue….What we need is an essentially different approach, one that would involve introducing new, groundbreaking, nature-like technologies that would not damage the environment, but rather work in harmony with it, enabling us to restore the balance between the biosphere and technology upset by human activities.

It is indeed a challenge of global proportions. And I am confident that humanity does have the necessary intellectual capacity to respond to it. We need to join our efforts, primarily engaging countries that possess strong research and development capabilities, and have made significant advances in fundamental research. We propose convening a special forum under the auspices of the UN to comprehensively address issues related to the depletion of natural resources, habitat destruction, and climate change. Russia is willing to co-sponsor such a forum…..” Valdai)

Most people would never suspect that Putin supports a global effort to address climate change. And, how would they know, after all, bits of information like that– that help to soften Putin’s image and make him seem like a rational human being– are scrubbed from the media’s coverage in order to cast him in the worst possible light. The media doesn’t want people to know that Putin is a reflective and modest man who has worked tirelessly to make Russia and the world a better place. No, they want them to believe that he’s is a scheming tyrannical despot who’s obsessive hatred for America poses a very real threat to US national security. But it’s not true.

Putin is not the ghoulish caricature the media makes him out to be nor does he hate America, that’s just more propaganda from the corporate echo-chamber. The truth is Putin has been good for Russia, good for regional stability, and good for global security. He pulled the Russian Federation back from the brink of annihilation in 2000, and has had the country moving in a positive direction ever since. His impact on the Russian economy has been particularly impressive. According to Wikipedia:

“Between 2000 and 2012 Russia’s energy exports fueled a rapid growth in living standards, with real disposable income rising by 160%. In dollar-denominated terms this amounted to a more than sevenfold increase in disposable incomes since 2000. In the same period, unemployment and poverty more than halved and Russians’ self-assessed life satisfaction also rose significantly.”

Inequality is a problem in Russia just like it is in the US, but the vast majority of working people have benefited greatly from Putin’s reforms and a system of distribution that –judging by steady uptick in disposable incomes– is significantly superior to that in the United States where wages have flatlined for over 2 decades and where virtually all of the nation’s wealth trickles upward to the parasitic 1 percent.

Since Putin took office in 2000, workers have seen across-the-board increase in wages, benefits, healthcare and pensions. Poverty and unemployment have been reduced by more than half while foreign investment has experienced steady growth. Onerous IMF loans have been repaid in full, capital flight has all-but ceased, hundreds in billions in reserves have been accumulated, personal and corporate taxes have been slashed, and technology has experienced an unprecedented renaissance. The notorious Russian oligarchs still have a stranglehold on many privately-owned industries, but their grip has begun to loosen and the “kleptocracy has begun to fade.”

Things are far from perfect, but the Russian economy has flourished under Putin and, generally speaking, the people are appreciative. This helps to explain why Putin’s public approval ratings are typically in the stratosphere. (70 to 80 percent) Simply put: Putin the most popular Russian president of all time. And his popularity is not limited to Russia either, in fact, he typically ranks at the top of most global leadership polls such as the recent Gallup International End of Year Survey (EoY) where Putin came in third (43 percent positive rating) behind Germany’s Angela Merkel (49 percent) and French President Emmanuel Macron. (45 percent) According to Gallup: “Putin has gone from one in three (33 percent) viewing him favourably to 43 percent, a significant increase over two years.”

The only place where people have a negative view of Putin is in the United States (14 percent) and EU (28 percent), the two locations where he is relentlessly savaged by the media and excoriated by the political class. This should come as no surprise to Americans who know that the chances of stumbling across an article that treats Putin with even minimal objectivity is about as likely as finding a copper coin at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean. The consensus view of the western media is that Putin is a maniacal autocrat who kills journalists and political opponents (no proof), who meddles in US elections to “sow discord” and destroy our precious democracy (no proof), and who is conducting a secret and sinister cyberwar against the United States. (no proof). It’s a pathetic litany of libels and fabrications, but its impact on the brainwashed American people has been quite impressive as Gallup’s results indicate. Bottom line: Propaganda works.

The attacks on Putin began sometime in 2006 during Putin’s second term when it became apparent that Russia was going to resist the looting and exploitation the US requires of its vassal states. This is when the powerful Council on Foreign Relations funded a report titled “Russia’s Wrong Direction” that suggested that Russia’s increasingly independent foreign policy and insistence that it control its own vast oil and natural gas resources meant that “the very idea of a ‘strategic partnership’ no longer seems realistic.” That’s right, Russia was thrown under the bus because they wanted to control their own oil and their own destiny.

John Edwards and Jack Kemp were appointed to lead a CFR task force which concocted the absurd pretext that that Putin was “rolling back democracy” in Russia. They claimed that the government had become increasingly authoritarian and that the society was growing less “open and pluralistic”. Kemp and Edwards provided the ideological foundation upon which the entire public relations campaign against Putin has been built. Twelve years later, the same charges are still being leveled at Putin along with the additional allegations that he meddled in the 2016 presidential elections.

Needless to say, none of the nation’s newspapers, magazines or broadcast media ever publish anything that deviates even slightly from the prevailing, propagandistic narrative about Putin. One can only assume that the MSM’s views on Putin are either universally accepted by all 325 million Americans or that the so-called “free press” is a wretched farce that conceals an authoritarian corporate machine that censors all opinions that don’t promote their own malign political agenda.

What Washington really despises about Putin is that he has refused to comply with their diktats and has openly rejected their model of a “unipolar” world order. As he said at the annual Security Conference at Munich in 2007:

“The unipolar world refers to a world in which there is one master, one sovereign; one center of authority, one center of force, one center of decision-making. At the end of the day this is pernicious not only for all those within this system, but also for the sovereign itself because it destroys itself from within.”

Despite Russia’s efforts to assist the US in its War On Terror, Washington has continued to regard Putin as an emerging rival that would eventually have to be confronted. The conflict in Ukraine added more gas to the fire by pitting the two superpowers against each other in a hot war that remains unresolved to this day.

But Syria was the straw that broke the camel’s back. Russia’s intervention in the Syrian War in September 2015 proved to be the turning point in the 7 year-long conflagration. By rolling back the CIA-trained militants, Putin bloodied Washington’s nose and forced the Pentagon to adopt a backup plan that relied heavily on Kurdish proxies east of the Euphrates. At present, US Special Forces and their allies are clinging to a strip of arid wasteland in the Syrian outback hoping that the Pentagon brass can settle on a forward-operating strategy that reverses their fortunes or brings the war to a swift end.

The Syria humiliation precipitated the Russia-gate Information Operation (IO) which is the propaganda component of the current war on Russia. The scandal has been an effective way to poison public perceptions and to make it look like the perpetrator of aggression is really the victim. More important, failure in Syria has led to a reevaluation of how Washington conducts its wars abroad. The War on Terror pretext has been jettisoned for a more direct approach laid out in the Trump administration’s National Defense Strategy. The focus going forward will be on “Great Power Competition”, that is, the US is subordinating its covert proxy operations to more flagrant displays of military force particularly in regards to the “growing threat from revisionist powers”, Russia and China. In short, the gloves are coming off and Washington is ramping up for a land war.

Putin has become an obstacle to Washington’s imperial ambitions which is why he’s has been elevated to Public Enemy Number 1. It has nothing to do with the fictitious meddling in the 2016 elections or the nonsensical “rolling back democracy” in Russia. It’s all about power. In the United States the group with the tightest grip on power is the foreign policy establishment. These are the towering mandarins who dictate the policy, tailor the politics to fit their strategic vision, and dispatch their lackeys in the media to shape the narrative. These are the people who decided that Putin must be demonized to pave the way for more foreign interventions, more regime change wars, more bloody aggression against sovereign states.

Putin has repeatedly warned Washington that Russia would not stand by while the US destroyed one country after the other in its lust for global domination. He reiterated his claim that Washington’s “uncontained hyper-use of force” was creating “new centers of tension”, exacerbating regional conflicts, undermining international relations, and “plunging the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts.” He has pointed out how the US routinely displayed its contempt for international law and “overstepped its national borders in every way.” As a result of Washington’s aggressive behavior, public confidence in international law and global security has steadily eroded and “No one feels safe. I want to emphasize this,” Putin thundered in Munich. “No one feels safe.”

On September 28, 2015 Putin finally threw down the gauntlet in a speech he delivered at the 70th session of the UN General Assembly in New York. After reiterating his commitment to international law, the UN, and state sovereignty, he provided a brief but disturbing account of recent events in the Middle East, all of which have gotten significantly worse due to Washington’s use of force. Here’s Putin:

“Just look at the situation in the Middle East and Northern Africa… Instead of bringing about reforms, aggressive intervention destroyed government institutions and the local way of life. Instead of democracy and progress, there is now violence, poverty, social disasters and total disregard for human rights, including even the right to life…

The power vacuum in some countries in the Middle East and Northern Africa obviously resulted in the emergence of areas of anarchy, which were quickly filled with extremists and terrorists. The so-called Islamic State has tens of thousands of militants fighting for it, including former Iraqi soldiers who were left on the street after the 2003 invasion. Many recruits come from Libya whose statehood was destroyed as a result of a gross violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1973….”

US interventions have decimated Iraq, Libya, Syria and beyond. Over a million people have been killed while tens of millions have been forced to flee their homes and their countries. The refugee spillover has added to social tensions across the EU where anti-immigrant sentiment has precipitated the explosive growth in right wing groups and political organizations. From Northern Africa, across the Middle East, and into Central Asia, global security has steadily deteriorated under Washington’s ruthless stewardship. Here’s more from Putin:

“The Islamic State itself did not come out of nowhere. It was initially developed as a weapon against undesirable secular regimes. Having established control over parts of Syria and Iraq, Islamic State now aggressively expands into other regions….It is irresponsible to manipulate extremist groups and use them to achieve your political goals, hoping that later you’ll find a way to get rid of them or somehow eliminate them….”

Putin clearly blames the United States for the rise of ISIS and the surge in global terrorism. He also condemns Washington’s strategy to use terrorist organizations to achieve its own narrow strategic objectives. (regime change) More important, he uses his platform at the United Nations to explain why he has deployed the Russian Air-force to bases in Syria where it will it will be used to conduct a war against Washington’s jihadist proxies on the ground.

Putin: “We can no longer tolerate the current state of affairs in the world.”

Less than 48 hours after these words were uttered, Russian warplanes began pounding militant targets in Syria.

Putin again: “Dear colleagues,….relying on international law, we must join efforts to address the problems that all of us are facing, and create a genuinely broad international coalition against terrorism….Russia is confident of the United Nations’ enormous potential, which should help us avoid a new confrontation and embrace a strategy of cooperation. Hand in hand with other nations, we will consistently work to strengthen the UN’s central, coordinating role. I am convinced that by working together, we will make the world stable and safe, and provide an enabling environment for the development of all nations and peoples.”

So, here’s the question: Is Putin “evil” for opposing Washington’s regime change wars, for stopping the spread of terrorism, and for rejecting the idea that one unipolar world power should rule the world? Is that why he’s evil, because he won’t click his heels and do as he’s told by the global hegemon?

We should all be so evil.

Advertisements

Trump’s Pakistan Policy Is a Disaster

Trump’s Pakistan Policy Is a Disaster

Trump’s Pakistan Policy Is a Disaster

International fame, at last! Pakistan hit the headlines because it was the subject of Donald Trump’s first tweet of 2018. The country will have a small but everlasting place in history.

You know Trump: he’s the man who, immediately after being elected US President was reported by the BBC as having telephoned the then prime minister of Pakistan Nawaz Sharif to say Pakistan is “a fantastic country, fantastic place” and “amazing with tremendous opportunities.” He ended with the jovial request to “Please convey to the Pakistani people that they are amazing and all Pakistanis I have known are exceptional people.”

It is unlikely that Mr Trump knows any Pakistanis, but it seemed his attitude to Pakistan was positive. And so it continued until New Year’s Day 2018 when Trump tweeted

“The United States has foolishly given Pakistan more than 33 billion dollars in aid over the last 15 years, and they have given us nothing but lies & deceit, thinking of our leaders as fools. They give safe haven to the terrorists we hunt in Afghanistan, with little help. No more!”

He meant that the Pakistan army, which has had 6,687 soldiers killed fighting terrorists since 2001 when the US invaded Afghanistan, is helping terrorists based in Pakistan.

Since the US attack on Afghanistan, and subsequent expansion of Islamic terrorist groups in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region, Pakistan has suffered 468 suicide bombing attacks, in which 7,230 of its citizens were killed. Before 2001 there was one such attack, in 1995 by a crazy Egyptian who drove a bomb-laden lorry into the Egyptian Embassy’s gates.

When Trump tweeted his message Pakistan had ended a year in which, as recorded by India’s South Asia Terrorism Portal, it suffered 3,001 civilian deaths from terrorism, and 676 of its soldiers were killed in fighting against terrorists, while 1,702 terrorists were killed. It was quite a year, but not as bad as 2009, for example, at the height of the US “surge” in Afghanistan, when almost a thousand Pakistani soldiers were killed while conducting operations against terrorists in their strongholds in the Tribal Areas.

Pakistan army soldiers fighting through Mirali town in North Waziristan in 2014. Five were killed in this anti-terrorist operation

It may be remembered that in 2009 Afghanistan’s President Karzai said there was “an urgent need” for direct negotiations with the Taliban and made it clear that the US government opposed any such approach. Meanwhile, there was indeed increased movement of terrorists between the countries, made less difficult for them because the Afghan government refused to permit erection of any sort of border barrier.

Eleven years ago, Carlotta Gall of the New York Times wrote that the Afghan President “voiced strong opposition on [December 28, 2006] to Pakistan’s announcement that it would lay mines and erect fences along its border with Afghanistan. He said the moves would only hurt the people living in the region and would not stem cross-border terrorism.”

This was nonsense, because natural or man-made barriers can dissuade or even prevent illegal movement. And when covered by observation and fire (as all armies agree they must be), they can verge on the impenetrable. It is essential to have frequent and irregular patrols by troops, surveillance on the ground and from the air (so what have all these US drones been doing?), and artillery in positions from which fire can be directed onto those attempting cross-border forays.

It can be catastrophic if an obstacle is unguarded. During the Vietnam War the Australian army planted an enormous minefield around a mountain occupied by bands of Viet Cong guerrillas but had to withdraw patrolling troops as there was an emergency elsewhere, and the predictable result was that the Viet Cong picked up all the mines — thousands of them — and over the following years used them to kill Australians.

But if minefields had been planted at appropriate places along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, on both sides, as proposed by the Pakistan government, and patrolled aggressively by the armies of both countries, nobody could claim that illegal crossings would have been easy. If the Afghan army had been ordered to cooperate with their opposite numbers across the border, and if there had been coordinated surveillance and foot patrols — as wanted by the Pakistan military — then it would have been very difficult indeed for insurgents to cross in either direction. The US did not approve Pakistan’s proposal for fencing and minefields and did not supply any assistance for the project. So the barrier was not erected.

It is ironic that Trump is cancelling military security aid to Pakistan, because this cash assists Pakistan’s security forces to combat terrorists. In January the Pakistani media reported that

“Pakistan has spent more than Rs 67.3 billion ($605 million) during the last one and a half years in its efforts to stop infiltration of terrorists operating in Afghanistan and securing vital installations, including the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, from cross-border attacks.”

But all was not quite what it seemed. Or perhaps it was, because nobody knows exactly how foreign policy is devised in Trump Washington. Anyway : after the Trump tweet against Pakistan his Defence Secretary, General Mattis, “vowed to continue working with the Pakistan government to defeat terrorism in south Asia despite the United States stopping nearly all its financial aid to the country.” He did not, of course, ask Pakistan if it wanted to continue working with the United States on anything at all, but that’s the way overseas relations are handled in the era of Trump.

Trump was supported by Senator Rand Paul who tweeted

“I’m introducing a bill to end aid to Pakistan in the coming days. My bill will take the money that would have gone to Pakistan and put it in an infrastructure fund to build roads and bridges here at home.”

This was greeted by a Trump tweet saying “Good idea, Rand!” But at the same time a “senior administration official” said “I just want to be clear that it’s been suspended. Nothing has been reappropriated. We’re hopeful that we can lift the suspension and the aid will be able to go forward.” So what is the real policy? Nobody knows.

All this leaves Pakistan with some problems. It can live without the US money, of course, although there’s no doubt it has been most useful and much appreciated, but as time goes by its air force will have difficulty in continuing to operate its F-16 aircraft because the US will probably refuse to sell it replacement parts. Its orders for US attack helicopters may also be affected. But the US is not the only source of defence equipment, and there is little doubt that China, Russia and Turkey will move to plug any gaps. And there are other factors that Washington would do well to contemplate.

One most positive effect of Trump’s insulting tweet has been to unite Pakistanis. It appears that no matter their political leanings they have joined in strong rejection of US policy. Foreign Minister Khawaja Asif said bluntly that the US

“carried out 57,800 attacks on Afghanistan from our bases. Your forces were supplied arms and explosives through our soil. Thousands of our civilians and soldiers became victims of the war initiated by you.”

And his sentiments were echoed by the prominent opposition politician, Imran Khan, who said

“Despite Pakistan clearing up North Waziristan, still half of Afghanistan is in Taliban hands. So, who is responsible for this? To make Pakistan the scapegoat of a failed strategy in Afghanistan is not just a travesty of justice, it is deeply insulting and humiliating.”

Quite so. And this is probably going to be the way ahead for Pakistan. To my certain knowledge, Pakistan has provided intelligence about potential terrorist-related activities in America (and the UK). So why should they continue such cooperation? And as the New York Times pointed out on January 5, “the US “has always relied on Pakistani air and ground routes for supplies to the troops in Afghanistan” — so why should Pakistan continue to offer such facilities? It could cut them off in a moment.

Trump failed to understand that insulting North Korea’s leader would result in such strong reaction to his immature jibes. His anti-Iran diatribes are entirely counter-productive. And he’s playing the same tune again. Trump’s anti-Pakistan policy is a disaster.

Is North Korea Really a ‘State Sponsor of Terrorism’?

 

Is North Korea Really a ‘State Sponsor of Terrorism’?


By Ron Paul

November 27, 2017 “Information Clearing House” –  President Trump announced last week that he was returning North Korea to the US list of “state sponsors of terrorism” after having been off the list for the past nine years. Americans may wonder what dramatic event led the US president to re-designate North Korea as a terrorism-sponsoring nation. Has Pyongyang been found guilty of some spectacular terrorist attack overseas or perhaps of plotting to overthrow another country by force? No, that is not the case. North Korea is back on the US list of state sponsors of terrorism because President Trump thinks the move will convince the government to give up its nuclear weapons and ballistic missile program. He believes that continuing down the path toward confrontation with North Korea will lead the country to capitulate to Washington’s demands. That will not happen.

President Trump and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson argued that North Korea deserved to be back on the list because the North Korean government is reported to have assassinated a North Korean citizen – Kim Jong-Un’s own half-brother — in February at the Kuala Lumpur International Airport. But what does that say about Washington’s own program to assassinate US citizens like Anwar al-Awlaki and his 16 year old son under Obama, and later Awlaki’s six year old daughter under Trump? Like Kim’s half brother, Awlaki and his two children were never tried or convicted of a crime before being killed by their own government.

The neocons, who are pushing for a war with North Korea, are extremely pleased by Trump’s move. John Bolton called it “exactly the right thing to do.”

Designating North Korea as a state sponsor of terrorism will allow President Trump to impose the “highest level of sanctions” on North Korea. Does anyone believe more sanctions – which hurt the suffering citizens of North Korea the most – will actually lead North Korea’s leadership to surrender to Washington’s demands? Sanctions never work. They hurt the weakest and most vulnerable members of society the hardest and affect the elites the least.

So North Korea is officially a terrorism-sponsoring nation according to the Trump Administration because Kim Jong-Un killed a family member. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia is in the process of killing the entire country of Yemen and no one says a word. In fact, the US government has just announced it will sell Saudi Arabia $7 billion more weapons to help it finish the job.

Also, is it not “state-sponsorship” of terrorism to back al-Qaeda and ISIS, as Saudi Arabia has done in Syria?

The truth is a “state sponsor of terrorism” designation has little to do with actual support for global terrorism. As bad as the North Korean government is, it is does not go abroad looking for countries to invade. The designation is a political one, allowing Washington to ramp up more aggression against North Korea.

Next month the US and South Korean militaries will conduct a massive military exercise practicing an attack on North Korea. American and South Korean air force fighters and bombers will practice “enemy infiltration” and “precision strike drills.” Are these not also to be seen as threatening?

What is terrorism? Maybe we should ask a Yemeni child constantly wondering when the next Saudi bomb overhead might kill his family. Or perhaps we might even ask a Pakistani, Somali, Iraqi, Syrian, or other child who is terrified that the next US bomb will do the same to his family. Perhaps we need to look at whether US foreign policy actually reflects the American values we claim to be exporting before we point out the flaws in others.

This article was originally published by RonPaul Institute –

Copyright © 2017 by RonPaul Institute.

 

Christopher Bollyn on Book Tour, Making Jews Unhappy

Posted on 

Christopher Bollyn, the author of a series of articles and books on “Solving 9/11,” is presently on tour promoting his latest book, The War on Terror: The Plot to Rule the Middle East. And wouldn’t you know it? With every stop he makes he seems to be infuriating local Jews in the towns and cities he visits.

Bollyn has never been shy about discussing the substantial evidence pointing to Israeli involvement in 9/11, and in the video below you’ll hear him discuss how his presentation in Santa Cruz, California had to be moved out to a local public beach after pressure was put on the venue owner, and he also talks about efforts to disrupt his presentation at a public library in Ashland, Oregon.

The following video contains footage from a talk Bollyn gave in Laguna Beach, California.

I first came across the Laguna Beach video a couple of days ago at the Green Crow as the Crow Flies blog. Here are some very pertinent comments about it made by the administrator of that blog:

Bollyn (and the cameraman off camera at the back of the room) try to reason with the Jewish questioner.  They keep running into total absence of logic.  The Questioner seems to have been brainwashed with all the buzz words and talking points of the M$M.  He starts off by lecturing Bollyn with the shopworn “definition” of a conspiracy theorist…”One who starts off with a conclusion and then dismisses anything that contravenes that conclusion to end up with a (conspiracy) theory.”  Bollyn counters by asking the Jewish questioner “what facts have I omitted?  Name just one“.  The questioner quickly moves away from that argument and does not present one fact.

Rather, he moves on to the ludicrous statement that “Bush started the war on Iraq because Saddam threatened his father”.  This is a 5 year old’s comic book (Superman and Batman) view of geopolitics.  Bollyn and the off screen cameraman keep drilling down to force the questioner to provide proof or theory to back up his ridiculous statements…like the Jews in the WTC didn’t get a warning so, out of 400 Jews working in the WTC, only four (according to Netanyahu) were killed in the atrocity.  The cameraman provides video proof that several prominent New York Jews, including former Senator, Al Franken who had offices in the WTC admitted they were warned.

The topic switches to the Middle East and the question of why the United States has been forced to go to war for Israeli interests.  This is where it gets interesting….the offscreen cameraman keeps drilling down on the Jewish questioner’s responses….Why is Israel so disliked in the middle east that it has to “defend itself” from all its neighbours?  Finally the truth is presented (by the cameraman):  “Because of what has happened to the Palestinians (and by extrapolation is threatened to all Arabs living on land that Jews covet).”

The questioner, to his credit, finally answers the question of why Israel wants to destroy Syria…He asks:  “Have you ever walked the Golan Heights?  Have you ever stood on top and seen the land spread out before you?  The Golan Heights is prime land for anyone to shoot down at Israel.”  So, in other words…any land in the middle east that is within shooting distance of Israel is fair game for Jewish takeover.  Is that logical?????

Bollyn points out that the Golan Heights are fertile and priceless oil fields as well as being geostrategically important.  He also points out that Israel’s occupation of those lands has never been accepted by the world community…BUT… that if Syria were destroyed…the lands would, of course, automatically and by default fall into Israeli hands.  So, it is all about the land after all….the debate finally drilled down to the ultimate nugget of truth.

At this point, the debate ended as the questioner and his wife got up and left the room.  The video cuts out but then takes up again as the cameraman briefly re-engaged with the couple in the hallway.  The wife, who had up until then been silent, told the cameraman that she was not going to engage with him anymore because “our people have been killed for this”.  Yes, the victim card…the last card to be played in any debate with Jewish ziofascists.  Not the Palestianians who have died and/or been existing for 60 years on the biggest outdoor concentration camp the world has ever seen, not the Iraqis, Syrians, Afghanis, Libyans, Yemenis etc., etc.,…but “our people”.

Far worse than gluten–it would appear that some people suffer a major allergic reaction to the truth. I’ll close here with some very wise words spoken by Bollyn himself–in a post on his website put up on August 30 at the outset of his book tour:

To believe the official myth about 9/11 is to be trapped in a joyless state of mind because joy cannot co-exist with fear and hate. This is why embracing 9/11 truth is essential for our well-being and sanity, as individuals and as a nation. There is immense spiritual value in freeing ourselves from deception and living in truth.

ISIS – Always-Always Claims Responsibility

by Peter Koenig

August 22, 2017

ISIS – Always-Always Claims Responsibility

Whenever a terrorist attack hits somewhere in Europe or the world, wait a few hours and the police or media report ISIS / ISIL / Daesh claims responsibility. To enhance credibility, they usually say it was confirmed by ISIS news agency Amaq. As soon as this little piece of info is out, the upset populace takes a deep breath and falls at ease. It’s the usual culprits. It’s them, not us. We are fine. We can go back to business as usual.

This in Europe alone has happened more than 40 times since May 2014 – that’s as many ‘Muslim-induced terror attacks’ Western Europe has endured; from Paris to Nice, Brussels, London, Berlin, Munich, Würzburg, Copenhagen, Zvornik (Bosnia & Herzegovina), Moscow, Istanbul, and many more (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism_in_Europe_(2014%E2%80%93present) ). And almost without fail, the alleged perpetrator(s) were killed, though most of them were not armed and could have been apprehended by police, questioned and brought to justice. Dead men don’t talk. That’s more convenient.

The latest Barcelona terror Amuck-run on the Rambla is not different. It is a case in point and a typical case for confusion. There were several chief-perpetrators suspected and killed. Many names circulated – and, of course, a passport, leading to a Spanish enclave in Morocco was found. The owner of the passport, immediately reported it to the police as stolen, with a solid alibi. But then, suitably his 17-year-old brother stole the passport and left it in the white van, when he fled on foot, injured from an explosion the night before, in a residency some 230 km south of Barcelona – or was that really him? – and several hours after the Rambla assault, he was caught by police in Cambrils, 120 km south of Barcelona in another attempted pedestrian run – and killed among one of five terrorists who happened to be squeezed into the same Audi. Ever wondered, why so many terrorists in one car? – Or was he really one of those killed? http://www.globalresearch.ca/barcelona-the-hypocrisy-of-sorrow/5604767).

By now, the people are really-really confused. Nobody knows up from down in this chaos. Better leave it to the authorities. They know best to handle the situation. Let us go back to normal – until the next terror attack hits – Allahu Akbar – very likely next in a theatre near you, somewhere in this old, purposefully and increasingly militarized police state, called Europe.

What happened to the real and innocent owner of the passport? – Does anybody know? Or can we ask ten ‘official’ sources and get ten different answers?

How come special police throughout Europe apply the same philosophy – kill to shut them up? Isn’t there a police ethics code – shoot only in self-defense? Most cases were no self-defense, as the ‘terrorists’ were visibly not armed. Have European secret and special police forces been receiving collective, well-focused training: no Muslim-Terrorist Survivors!

Why not? – That would also explain why never anybody questions the ISIS claim to murder and mayhem. Why would ISIS / ISIL / Daesh want to hurt those who fund them, train them, arm them feed them? – It’s not even secret any more. Hillary said so already years ago, We created them, now we have to deal with them. Former CIA officials admitted that they recruited, funded, trained and armed them – later the ISIL / Daesh reign was expanded with additional financial backing by the Saudis, other Gulf States and Turkey – and, of course, all the holy western allies. – So, why would ISIS want to hurt the cow whose milk they drink? Strange – isn’t it? (http://www.globalresearch.ca/who-is-behind-the-barcelona-and-cabril-attacks-can-we-believe-the-official-reports/5604719)

Maybe what meets the eye is not reality. Could it be that ISIS / ISIL / Daesh, out of sheer gratitude to its benevolent sponsors have agreed to take the blame whenever a western orchestrated terror attack strikes somewhere in Europe or the world? Can’t be excluded, can it? It’s not even blackmail. After all, lending a helping hand to the Big Brothers, NATO, France, Germany, UK, US of A and many more lesser contributors, but contributors all the same – who keep you alive, would not be out of the world. – Right? – This is all done in connivance with massive support of European secret services, led by the usual villains, CIA, MI6, Mossad.

Is it therefore far-fetched to conclude that European governments are utterly complicit in instigating and executing these ‘false flag’ terror attacks, sacrificing the lives of hundreds of their citizens, just so they can pursue their goal of totally militarizing the Continent? – That they are as faithful vassals following the pattern of their trans-Atlantic partners – aiming at Full Spectrum Dominance – World Hegemony, a New World Order under a One World Order governed by Washington and its Deep Dark handlers? – Barcelona, Paris, Berlin are mere little pebbles in the Big Picture mosaic of world dominion. And the people, the mothers, fathers, wives, husbands, children who are killed – they are just menial collateral damage. After all, slaves – what is their value?

Peter Koenig is an economist and geopolitical analyst. He is also a former World Bank staff and worked extensively around the world in the fields of environment and water resources. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for Global Research, ICH, RT, Sputnik, PressTV, The 4th Media (China), TeleSUR, The Vineyard of The Saker Blog, and other internet sites. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed – fiction based on facts and on 30 years of World Bank experience around the globe. He is also a co-author of The World Order and Revolution! – Essays from the Resistance.

The World Civil War: Will ISIS win or will be defeated? حرب أهلية عالمية: داعش ينتصر أم ينهزم؟

 

The World Civil War:  Will ISIS win or will be defeated?

أغسطس 21, 2017

Written by Nasser Kandil,

شرقاً درّ… الغرب منافق ومتآمر

The international scene does not seem promising as long as the political leaderships of the active and the ruling countries live in a state of alienation from reality. The first superpower which has political, economic, and military control in the world is headed by a white racist who talks in a language that bears the responsibility of more cracks in the humanitarian relationships between the ethnics, colors, and religions. In Europe, where there is the Islamic extremism which has the dark skin versus the Christian extremism which has white and blond skin, and where the black and the blue eyes become the criterion for belonging, dignity and later the death, the reluctant political leaderships rule and flatter the relations with the Gulf governments the source of extremism and atonement on one hand, and with the right –wing extremism in their countries with electoral considerations on the other hand. With the knowledge of these political leaderships the scenes of the opposite mobilization for a civil war are organized. They turn along with their security services into statistical system for victims and denouncing crimes. While in the Islamic rich capable countries, the center of rule is distributed between a sponsor of Wahhabism the origin of takfiri schools in Saudi Arabia and the reference of the Muslim Brotherhood between Ankara and Doha where the media, money, fatwas, mosques turn into schools for sending more of terrorists. In the poor and upper middle-class countries the wars are under ashes, the power is controlled by governments that most of them do not have solutions for the problems of the national independence or attitudes towards the major issues at their forefront Palestine, or plans of development that combat the poverty and ignorance and grant the priority to the security. Therefore thousands of them flee to the west coasts in search for better life, later they become under the pressure of the racist attraction and then fuel for the next war.

It is no longer possible to confine the search of the global security with the fate of ISIS, Al Nusra, and Al-Qaeda organization in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt and Libya. The whole world turns into open battlefield where an army does not meet an army or security with terrorism but a white extremist kills the innocent ordinary people from the black or the Muslims, versus Black Muslim extremist kills good simple people of blue eyes. This is the unfair war in its two aspects; its victims are ordinary people. In this war only the racists and the takifiris celebrate their victory by the blood of victims through absorbing new waves of angry people who are similar to them and mobilize them as new soldiers in their unjust war. After every killing of innocents by the Takfiri of ISIS and Al-Qaeda they crowd tens and hundreds of the while Christians of Europe and America to the ranks of the new Nazis and racists, and after every killing that targets the Muslims and the Black in Britain and America they crowd tens and hundreds to the ranks of Al-Qaeda and its supporters and those who celebrate the joy of their criminal operations.

The world turns into dramatic theatre where victims kill other victims by turning around the killers, supporting them, and rejoicing the crime against the innocents and considering it a revenge of victims of similar crime unless a miracle happens. The world will move during few years to more difficult and complicate stage, we will witness during it mutual arming and the spontaneous sort of people by avoiding colors, the share of residence and work in the same areas in search for security and dignity, then it will be easy to see the closure of the districts by night in front of the other color as an enemy, and later closing the districts in front of the police for the sake of the mutual self-security, along with arming that will be followed by raising the opposite barricades. So neither Paris nor London nor Brussels, nor Amsterdam, nor Berlin, nor New York nor Chicago will be away from it. When the spark of this open war breaks out the wise will wake up where the hypocrisy will control the situation, and they will move electorally towards the culture of the white racism and towards the Wahhabism and the Muslim Brotherhood for interest and financial considerations, so maybe today they will be aware that unless there is firmness in confronting these two extremisms, and unless the banners of the civil just protecting country are raised the people in all the world will wake up to discover lately that they turned this beautiful planet into unviable place.

Those who prepare themselves to celebrate the victory on ISIS, they prepare for it and for Al-Qaeda the opportunity of celebrating a joint victory with the White racists against humanity, rationality, civilization, and the victory of death over life.

Translated by Lina Shehadeh,

حرب أهلية عالمية: داعش ينتصر أم ينهزم؟

ناصر قنديل

أغسطس 18, 2017

شرقاً درّ… الغرب منافق ومتآمر

– لا يبدو المشهد الدولي مبشّراً بالخير، طالما أنّ القيادة السياسية لدول فاعلة وحاكمة تعيش بغربة عن الواقع. فالدولة العظمى الممسكة بالدفة السياسية والاقتصادية والعسكرية الأولى في العالم، يتربّع على رأسها عنصري أبيض يتحدّث بلغة تتحمّل مسؤولية إنتاج المزيد من التصدّع في جدار العلاقات الإنسانية بين الأعراق والألوان والأديان، وفي أوروبا حيث ينمو التطرفان الإسلامي الأسمر اللون والبشرة، ومقابله التطرف المسيحي الأبيض والأشقر، وتصير العيون السوداء والعيون الزرقاء معياراً للانتماء والهوية ولاحقاً للموت، تحكم قيادات سياسية متردّدة تجامل العلاقات بالحكومات الخليجية مصدّرة التطرف والتكفير من جهة وبالتطرف اليميني في بلادها بحسابات انتخابية، وتتمّ تحت أعينها مشاهد التعبئة المتقابلة لحرب أهلية لا تبقي ولا تَذَر، وهي تتحوّل مع أجهزتها الأمنية إلى جهاز إحصاء للضحايا وتنديد بالجريمة، وفي الدول الإسلامية الغنية والقادرة يتوزّع مركز الحكم بين راعٍ للوهابية منشأ مدارس التكفير في السعودية، ومرجعية الإخوان المسلمين بين أنقرة والدوحة، حيث الإعلام والمال والفتاوى والمساجد تتحوّل مدارس لتخريج المزيد من الإرهابيين، وفي الدول الفقيرة والمتوسطة الحال، حروب تحت الرماد تمسك بالسلطة حكومات لا تملك في أغلبها حلولاً لمشاكل الاستقلال الوطني ولا وقوفاً على خط القضايا الكبرى وفي مقدّمتها فلسطين، ولا خطط تنمية ومكافحة للفقر والجهل، وتمنح الأولوية للإمساك بالأمن، فتنزح منها ألوف نحو سواحل الغرب بحثاً عن حياة أفضل بداية، لتصير تحت ضغط الاستقطاب العنصري لاحقاً وقوداً للحرب الآتية.

– لم يعُد ممكناً حصر البحث بالأمن العالمي بمصير داعش والنصرة وتنظيم القاعدة في سورية ولبنان والعراق وأفغانستان ومصر وليبيا، فقد تحوّل العالم كله ساحة حرب مفتوحة، لا يتقابل فيها جيش مع جيش، أو أمن مع إرهاب، بل يقوم متطرف أبيض بقتل الناس العاديين الأبرياء الطيبين من السود أو المسلمين، ومقابله يقوم متطرف أسمر مسلم بقتل الناس الطيبين البسطاء من ذوي العيون الزرقاء. وهذه الحرب الظالمة بوجهيها، ضحاياها هم الناس بكلّ ما تتسع له الكلمة من معانٍ وأبعاد. وفي هذه الحرب وحدهم العنصريون والتكفيريون يحتفلون بتبادل أنخاب دماء الضحايا بنصرهم، المتمثل باستيعاب موجات جديدة من الغاضبين من أبناء جلدتهم وتطويعهم جنوداً جدداً في حربهم الظالمة، فكلّ عملية قتل لأبرياء على يد تكفيري من داعش والقاعدة تضخّ العشرات والمئات من المسيحيين البيض في أوروبا وأميركا إلى صفوف النازيين الجدد والعنصريين. وكلّ عملية قتل تستهدف المسلمين والسود في بريطانيا وأميركا تضخ المئات والآلاف إلى صفوف القاعدة ومريديها ومؤيديها والمحتفلين بفرح بعملياتها الإجرامية.

– يتحوّل العالم مسرحاً درامياً مرّ الطعم والمذاق، الضحايا يقتلون الضحايا، بالتفافهم حول القتلة وتأييدهم، واحتفالهم فرحاً بوقوع الجريمة بحق الأبرياء واعتبارها انتقاماً لضحايا جريمة مماثلة وقعت بحق ضحايا آخرين، وما لم تحدث معجزة، يذهب العالم بأعين مفتوحة خلال سنوات قليلة لمرحلة أصعب وأعقد، سنشهد خلالها التسلّح المتقابل والفرز السكاني العفوي، بتفادي اللونين تشارك السكن والعمل في أماكن واحدة بحثاً عن الأمن والكرامة، وبعدها سيكون سهلاً رؤية إغلاق الأحياء ليلاً أمام اللون الآخر كعدو، ولاحقاً إغلاق الأحياء بوجه الشرطة لحساب أمن ذاتي متقابل، وسريان حمّى التسلح يتبعها ارتفاع متاريس متقابلة، لن تكون لا باريس ولا لندن ولا بروكسل ولا أمستردام ولا برلين ولا نيويورك وشيكاغو بمنأى عنها. وعندما تندلع شرارة هذه الحرب المفتوحة على الموت بلا حساب، سيستفيق الحكماء أنهم استقالوا من مهمتهم عندما كان النفاق سيد الموقف، تجاه ثقافة العنصرية البيضاء انتخابياً، وتجاه الوهابية والإخوانية لاعتبارات مصلحية ومالية، عساهم يدركون اليوم أنه ما لم يقع الحزم بمواجهة هذين التطرّفين الإثنين، وما لم ترتفع رايات الدولة المدنية العادلة والراعية والحامية، سيفيق الناس، كلّ الناس، في العالم، كلّ العالم، ليكتشفوا بعد فوات الأوان أنهم حوّلوا هذا الكوكب الجميل مكاناً غير صالح للعيش.

Related

At Least 13 Killed, 50 Injured In Barcelona Van Attack. ISIS Claimed Responsibility

At least 13 people were killed and 50 others injured when a van plowed into a crowd in the turist area in Barcelona, Spain, on Thursday. Catalonia’s interior minister Joaquim Forn officially confirmed these numbers.

According to some media reports, the death toll could be even higher, up to 20 people. However, this still has to be confirmed.

One suspect was arrested after the incident described as a terror attack by Spanish police.

Spanish police have identified one of the suspects as Driss Oukabir. He had allegedly rented the white Fiat van used in the attack. It is not clear if he is the person who has been arrested.

ÚLTIMA HORA | La policía identifica a uno de los implicados en el atentado de Barcelona: Driss Oukabir http://cort.as/yoxE 

A second van linked to the attack (assumed to have been used as getaway car) has been found in the town of Vic in Catalonia.

Rumors are also circulating that somebody has opened fire on police in Barcelona but no confirmation has appeared yet. Spanish media had also reported that two armed men were holed up in a bar in downtown. However, police later dismissed those reports.

Report: Somebody has opened fire on police in second possible attack. 

ISIS claimed responsibility for the attack via its news agency Amaq.

At Least 13 Killed, 50 Injured In Barcelona Van Attack. ISIS Claimed Responsibility

It was the latest terrorist attack using a vehicle in Europe. The incident followed similar attacks in Nice, Berlin and London that have resulted in killing of over 100 people in total.

Meanwhile, US President Donald Trump suggested to use General Pershing’s methods to combat terrorism. During his presidential campaign Trump cited a dubious legend of dipping bullets in pig’s blood, shooting 49 of 50 terrorists, and telling the last one to tell his friends what would happen if they committed further terrorist attacks.

Study what General Pershing of the United States did to terrorists when caught. There was no more Radical Islamic Terror for 35 years!

Photos from the scene:

At Least 13 Killed, 50 Injured In Barcelona Van Attack. ISIS Claimed Responsibility

At Least 13 Killed, 50 Injured In Barcelona Van Attack. ISIS Claimed Responsibility

Related Articles

مقالات مشابهة

Who Was Behind the Barcelona and Cambrils Attacks? Can We Trust the Official Reports? Update

Global Research, August 19, 2017

“Three fatal incidents believed to be linked to terrorism occur over a 24-hour period and a 190-mile stretch of north-east Spain” 

“Fourteen people have been confirmed killed in two attacks in Spain on Thursday. Thirteen died when a 

van was driven in to crowds on Las Ramblas in Barcelona, and one person was killed by a car in Cambrils, a coastal town 75 miles (120km) to the the south. The horrific events appear to have begun the night before, in another town 120 miles south of Barcelona.” (Guardian

UPDATE (Saturday, August 19, 13.40pm local time, 07.40am ET) 

Moussa Oukabir is dead. And now the police reports say we made a mistake, he was not the driver. There is another guy that we are going after. In the meantime two suspected drivers have been killed. One of them, according to police reports was not involved in the attacks. 

How many innocent “suspects” have been killed by the police. 

According to the latest media reports:

“The driver in Thursday’s van attack that killed 13 people in a tourist area of Barcelona may still be alive and on the run, Spanish police say.” (BBC) His name is Moroccan bornYounes Abouyaaqoub, now named by Spanish media as the suspected driver.”

Abouyaaqoub, 22, lived in the town of Ripoll to the north of Barcelona. Three people have been arrested in Ripoll and one person in Alcanar.

Oukabir had previously been seen as the main suspect – but late on Friday police chief Josep Trapero told local TV that the theory that he was the driver now “had less weight”.

A police manhunt to arrest Younes is ongoing. Will he arrested or killed like all the other suspects

According to police sources (EARLIER REPORTS FRIDAY), the alleged suspect driver of the van Moussa Oukabir, 17 years old (18 in some news reports) in the Las Ramblas attack was shot dead by police on Friday.

Latest reports:

“In the early hours of Friday police shot dead five attackers, including Oukabir, in Cambrils after the men drove a car into pedestrians, killing one woman and injuring six other people.

The attackers’ vehicle overturned and when the men got out they were quickly fired upon by police. One was reportedly brandishing a knife. Police chief Trapero said one officer killed four of the attackers single-handedly (BBC, August 19, 2017)

It is worth noting that two hours after the Barcelona terror attack, a suspect “was shot dead” after driving through a roadblock in Barcelona. According to police reports, he was killed by mistake: “He is now not believed to be linked to the attack.”

Moussa’s brother Driss Oukabir had initially been identified as a suspect when his ID was found at the scene of the Barcelona attack. Following the press reports concerning his ID, Driss went voluntarily to the police station saying that his ID had been stolen and he was not in any way involved in the attacks.

Was his brother Moussa (a suspect according to police reports) the perpetrator? Did a 17 year old have the required experience in driving a van in an allegedly carefully planned operation. (The minimum age in Spain to obtain a driver’s  licence for a car or a van is 18 years.)

Moussa is dead, dead men do not talk. But his brother is still alive.  Will he live to tell his brother’s real story?

According to the Guardian:

An official with Spain’s police union has backed up earlier reports that the teenager suspected of driving the van into crowds of pedestrians on Las Ramblas was shot dead by police during the shootout in Cambrils on Friday morning. Spanish media reported earlier on Friday that Moussa Oukabir, 17, was among the five men killed by officers after a second vehicle attack. Now, a union official has told AP colleagues in the Civil Guard police force confirmed to him Oukabir was killed in the Cambrils incident. Investigators believe Oukabir was behind the wheel of the van which ploughed into tourists in Barcelona’s city centre on Thursday, killing at least 13 and injuring 100. (Guardian, emphasis added)

(Picture: the van @KevRincon)

Timeline

The following provides a partial timeline of the Barcelona and Cambrils attacks as outlined by the Guardian. We include the Guardian quotes with relevant comments.  The Guardian timeline is indented, Our questions and comments are added beneath the indented quote where applicable (QC). In some cases the evidence is not available, in other cases the timeline provides contradictory and/or misleading information. 

Wednesday night, Alcanar 

“An explosion at a house in the small town of Alcanar, 120 miles south of Barcelona, and the southernmost point of Catalonia, kills one person and wounds 16.

Police say the blast is the result of an accumulation of gas, but do not release further details. Most injuries occur after firefighters and police officers are caught by a second blast while investigating the initial explosion.

Senior police official Josep Lluis Trapero later says the blast was related to the van attack in Barcelona the following day, and that those in the house were attempting to “prepare an explosive device”.”

QC No evidence that this event was related to the Barcelona attack on the following day 

Thursday, 5pm, Barcelona

“A white Fiat van veers off the road and into a crowd outside the Plaça de Catalunya metro station.

The driver continues down the pedestrian boulevard of Las Ramblas, a popular tourist destination, for more than 500 metres before stopping and fleeing on foot.

The smashed van is left at the foot of a mosaic by artist Joan Míro.

The attack kills 13 people and leaves about 100 injured.”

6.30pm, Vic

“In the town of Vic, 50 miles north of Barcelona, police find a second van, presumed to be a getaway vehicle.

Police say the van was hired at the same time as the Fiat used in the attack.

The perpetrator of the Barcelona attack remains at large.

7pm, ‘terrorist protocol’

“Catalan police confirm they are dealing with a terrorist attack. On Twitter they say they have “activated the terrorist attack protocol” for the region.”

QC. What evidence do they have that this is a terrorist attack? 

7.30pm, Sant Just Desvern

A man is killed when he attempts to drive through a police roadblock in the town of Sant Just Desvern, on the outskirts of Barcelona.

Initial reports say he died from police gunfire after running over two officers, leaving one with a broken leg. An official at the time ruled out a connection to the attack on Las Ramblas.

On Friday morning, the Catalan interior minister, Joaquim Forn, contradicts earlier reports, saying the man died of knife wounds not inflicted by police.

He says a connection to the other attacks can no longer be ruled out.

QC  What evidence

8pm, suspect arrested

Police confirm one suspect, Driss Oukabir, has been arrested after turning himself in.

The 28-year old Moroccan-born Spanish resident is identified from documents left at the scene. But Oukabir says his passport and ID were stolen, and that he played no part in the attack.

Oukabir is arrested in the northern Catalan town of Ripoll, 70 miles from Barcelona. He tells police he came forward after he saw his name and image being circulated in the media.

The El País newspaper says Oukabir, or someone with his ID, rented the Fiat van used in the attack.

QC: Here The Guardian report is misleading. While earlier reports by El País  (August 17) stated that the alleged suspect 28-year-old Driss Oukabir, had been arrested by the Police, El Nacional (quoted by the Daily Express) reported that the suspect: “presented himself at a Catalan police station in Ripoll to deny having any involvement in this afternoon’s attack. He claims his ID was stolen and used by the terrorists to rent one of the vans used for the attack. Local sources, confirmed by the town’s mayor, Jordi Munell, have said that the young man, who lives in Ripoll, attended the police station to deny any involvement in the events (Daily Express, August 17, 2017, emphasis added)

It is worth noting that the Daily Express report contradicts its own headlines which state that he was “arrested”, when in fact he presented himself voluntarily at the the Ripoll police station.  The headline is a Lie.

9pm, ISIS speaks out

“Islamic State claims responsibility for the attack.

Using the group’s Amaq news agency, Isis claims the perpetrators of the attack are “soldiers of the Islamic State”, but this has not yet been verified. Claims of responsibility by Isis do not necessarily mean there is a direct connection between attackers and the terrorist group.”

QC:  ISIS was behind the attacks. It was an act of retribution against the West. The media in chorus –quoting authoritative sources– claims that the choice of Las Ramblas was “part of a strategy on the part of ISIS to target popular destinations in major cities across Europe”. “We know these people [ISIS militants] go for trophies; they go for iconic sites,” said Anthony Glees, director of the Centre for Security and Intelligence Studies at the University of Buckingham.” (CBC, August 18, 2017)

Reports state without a shred of evidence that the ISIS claimed responsibility and that the attack in Barcelona was carried out by “soldiers of the Islamic State” against “countries participating in the coalition against the ISIS in Syria and Iraq (CBC, August 18, 2017). An absurd proposition: It was the Syrian government SAA forces with the support of Russia and Iran which drove ISIS rebels out of Syria. And Russia is not the target of acts of retribution led by ISIS.

The US-led counterterrorism operation initiated by Obama in 2014 was not meant to go after the ISIS. Quite the opposite: the coalition was killing civilians while providing covert support including weapons to the ISIS.

What the media fails to acknowledge is that the ISIS is a construct of US intelligence, namely an “intelligence asset”  which is supported, trained and financed covertly by Washington and its allies including Turkey and Saudi Arabia, UK, France and Israel. There is ample documentation on this issue.

The link between the intelligence services of Western governments and Al Qaeda affiliated terror organizations is crucial and cannot be denied.  An understanding of who was behind the attacks must necessarily address the issue of the “State sponsorship” of terrorism.

9.30pm, second suspect arrested

A second unnamed suspect is confirmed as arrested, according to Catalonia’s regional president, Carles Puigdemont.

The police official Josep Lluis Trapero says the second man was born in the Spanish territory of Melilla in northern Morocco, and was arrested in Alcanar, the site of Wednesday’s house explosion.

Friday, 1am, Cambrils

Police kill four alleged terrorists, and injure one, after they carry out a second attack in the coastal town of Cambrils.

Police say the attackers drove an Audi A3 car into pedestrians, injuring six civilians and one police officer.

The Associated Press reports that police said that attackers were wearing what appeared to be explosive belts.

4am, injury toll

The injured suspect in Cambrils dies, bringing the number of dead suspects to five.

Police say one of the injured civilians is in a critical condition and is in hospital.

Catalan interior minister Joaquim Forn contradicts earlier reports about the roadblock in Sant Just Desvern. He says the man, who was the owner of the car, was not driving and was in the passenger seat. He was not killed by police but rather, was stabbed to death.

Forn said a connection to the other attacks was a possibility, and that a hunt was under way to find the person who drove the car to the roadblock.

The injured suspect is dead. How did he die. Was he granted first aid? Was the injured suspect killed by the police?

8.30am, third arrest

Catalonian police say they have arrested a third suspect in connection with the attacks, in Ripoll, where Driss Oukabir had been arrested on Thursday.

9.45am, suspected van driver identified

Spanish police identify 18-year-old Moussa Oukabir as the suspected driver of the van used in Las Ramblas attack, according to reports in Spanish media.

Oukabir is understood to be the younger brother of Driss Oukabir, the man arrested in Ripoll on Thursday. Driss Oukabir is reported to have told police that his identity documents were stolen before they were used to rent the van.

It should be noted that Driss Oukabir went to the police station and told them he was not involved, claiming that his ID had been stolen and used by the terrorists.

Driss’s younger brother Moussa is the suspected driver. What does this suggest. Did Moussa steal his brother’s ID? Did Driss know, when he went to the police that his brother was involved? Or did Moussa steal his brother’s ID as a means to renting the van? If Driss had known that his brother Moussa was involved, would he have gone to the police.

Missing ID or Passport

Driss’ ID was found near the attack in Barcelona.

What is important to point out is that in five previous terror attacks including Manchester, Berlin, Nice, London, New York, a passport or ID was found by the police authorities. In most cases the alleged suspect was known to the authorities.

Is there a pattern?  The ID papers of the suspect are often left behind, discovered by police in the wake of a terrorist attack.

Moreover, according to government and media reports pertaining these five previous cases, the suspects were without exception linked to an Al Qaeda affiliated entity.

None of these terror suspects survived. Dead men do not talk.

In the case of Barcelona, the ID of Driss Oukabir  was found at the site of the Barcelona attack. In the case of the tragic events in Manchester (May 2017), the bankcard of the alleged suicide bomber Salman Abedi was found in his pocket in the wake of the explosion.

Moussa Oukabir was killed. His brother Driss Oukabir is still alive and formally under police protection.

11.30am Overall death toll rises to 14

Police say a Spanish woman has died of injuries sustained in the Cambrils attack, taking the overall toll to 14.

12.40pm, fourth arrest

Spanish media report that a fourth person has been arrested in connection with the attacks

Friday afternoon, suspects reportedly sought

The Barcelona-based newspaper La Vanguardia reported late on Friday afternoon that the police were hunting four suspects aged 17, 18, 22, and 24. It named them as Moussa Oukabir – the suspect thought to have driven the van along Las Ramblas – Mohamed Hychami, Younes Abouyaaqoub, and Said Aallaa. All live in or close to the Catalonian town of Ripoll.

See update at top of article. These suspects were shot dead including Moussa Oukabir.

All the suspects have been killed. No testimony, no controversy, the suspects are terrorists. As in previous terror attacks in Western Europe, almost without exception, all the suspects are shot dead by police.

%d bloggers like this: