Muslim minorities are first victims of terror


, , , , , ,

Islamophobia in France– France’s ban on Islamic face veils.

Yasser Louati, the Paris-based spokesman for Collective Against Islamophobia in France (CCIF), recently gained internet fame when two news presenters pressed him to explain the Muslim community’s supposed responsibility in regards to the recent attacks in Paris that killed 130 people.

In the five-minute interview titled: “Muslim communities fear backlash after attacks. “CNN anchor Isha Sesay challenged the Frenchman to “step up and take a greater role in speaking out” while her co-anchor concluded the interview with, “I’m yet to hear the condemnation on the Muslim community on this, but we’ll wait and see.”

For his part, Louati said: “We cannot be held responsible for these people, that’s the government’s job when you have criminals running around the country, you do your job and arrest them … those terrorists targeted everybody, including Muslims.”

The interview raised the question of whether or not Muslims should publicly condemn indiscriminate attacks claimed by armed groups such as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant  (ISIL) group, which went on to claim responsibility for the deadly violence on November 13.

Louati tracks Islamophobia in France, about the biggest Muslim minority in Europe and their fear of a backlash after the Paris attacks.

Q and A with Louati

Are you concerned for the Muslim community after the Paris attacks?

Yasser Louati: Yes, definitely. We’ve already witnessed a wave of violence. If you compare to January 2015, [after the offices of Charlie Hebdo were targeted], there was a buffer time between the incident and when the first attacks were reported against Muslims. But this time around, the first attacks on the Muslim minority was almost immediate. We saw hate speech on social media and in columns carried in right-wing newspapers. Within hours, I saw death threats being posted on sites such as Facebook and Twitter.

Yasser Louati, the Paris-based spokesman for Collective Against Islamophobia in France, recently gained internet fame when two news presenters pressed him to explain the Muslim community’s supposed responsibility in regards to the recent attacks in Paris that killed 130 people.

What else is different about responses to the attack on November 13, compared to that of January?

Louati: Back then, the atmosphere was highly volatile but there was a sense that at least the government took precautions and spoke out against attacks against Muslims.

The new phenomenon is that we are witnessing a complete silence from the government. This time, the government is completely passive. It is further exacerbating attacks on Muslims in France. President [Francois] Hollande has declared a war on terrorism – we thought the war on terrorism was launched in January. But now, we feel that war has been declared on the Muslim minority in France – the wrong enemy.

People hold a placardWhat measures within the state of emergency have affected Muslims?

Louati: We have seen 793 raids on homes, mosques and private property, including Muslim-owned shops and restaurants. In the most shocking incidents, several mosques were raided at night and thrashed by police.

In Aubervilliers, a mosque was raided at night and police pulled out the ceiling, broke the doors and threw books on the floor – including the Quran. They stained the carpet. It is nonsense – there is no need for it. All mosques are already under surveillance.

We’re questioning the efficiency of the attacks. There has been one imprisonment that we know of from these raids. Is there a need for such brutality for one arrest?

In Nice, the fragment of a police bullet struck a six-year-old girl in the neck and ear, the Nice Matin local newspaper reported as it posted a video of the aftermath. This constitutes police brutality against Muslims, and we have received no reassurance from the government whatsoever.

Apart from during the raids, have you been informed of violence elsewhere?

Louati: When it comes to attacks from people, we’ve seen physical attacks on women. Those wearing the headscarf are often targeted when they are alone.

In Marseilles, a woman was punched in the face and attacked with a box cutter. In Givors, in the Carrefour supermarket, a man kicked a woman over and rolled the trolley over her while bystanders failed to act in her defence.

France_Islamophobia_Protests-630x354One unlucky young man was beaten into a coma in Pontivy by six people at a march organized by the far-right and attended by about 200 people; some had warned the mayor against letting the march go ahead, but he said it should continue in the name of free speech. Another man was shot in the north of France.

There are several examples of graffiti on mosques, with some writing ‘Death to Muslims’ or ‘Suitcase or coffin,’ which implies, ‘You leave or we will kill you,’ while others were tagged with crosses.

Overall, there were at least 26 attacks between November 14 and 19, and we are witnessing an average now of around four per day.

What are those who are targeted doing about it?

Louati: People don’t want to file charges. Several stores were raided, but the news came to us from neighbours. People are scared of retaliation, or scared of the government itself. There is a violent backlash coming from the government against Muslims. People were expecting sympathy from President Hollande, saying ‘We’re not at war with our Muslim citizens.’

I myself expect to be raided at any time… The state of emergency gave such broad power to the minister of interior that any house can be raided, any car can be searched – we’re all just waiting for the moment it happens to us.

How do people from the Muslim minority feel?

Louati: Let’s not forget these people were affected by the attacks too – we are talking about more than 100 people killed in one night. We didn’t even have the right to feel sad about them. I’m heartbroken for the victims and their families. They were of all different backgrounds: Christians, Muslims, Jews, black and white.

The feeling from the Muslim minority is that we are paying for three failures – foreign policy which has turned France into an enemy state, domestic policy which is social and economic and has failed to integrate the Muslim minority, and the failure of the intelligence community – the suspects of November 13 were known to them.

What do you mean by ‘social and economic’?

Louati: France has failed to integrate the Muslim minority – the suspects have the same traits: marginalisation, criminality. It’s [France] manufacturing the same kind of monsters over and again.

What do you advise people to do when they come to you?

Louati: We are inundated with calls right now. I have 1,700 emails in my inbox. If people approach us after having been attacked, we try to make them feel safe and gain their trust. We encourage them to file charges, to go to police station. But many say they fear that if they complain, they would be raided. They don’t feel safe.

The Minister of Interior [Bernard Cazeneuve], speaking in April, said radicalization does not take place in mosques, making the French public and Muslim community feel safer. Now, he’s saying ‘We are going to shut down radicalized mosques.’ In a way, he’s contradicting himself, and I think it’s because of the pressure applied by the political landscape by the far right ahead of elections. People are trying to position themselves.

How do you feel when you hear the term ‘war on terrorism’ being used?

Louati: They have declared a war on terrorism, but they have chosen the wrong enemy. Muslim minorities are the first victims of terrorism throughout the world.






Collective Against Islamophobia in France (CCIF)

Q&A – Al Jazeera

Islamophobic incidents

France sees rise in Islamophobic attacks post Charlie …

France Islamophobia

French Muslims caught between Islamophobia and extremism

Next France Has A History Of Anti-Semitism And Islamophobia

Stigmatising Muslims in France can only do more harm

French Muslim Council asks mosques to decry ‘terror’

Non-Muslims Carried Out More than 90% of All Terrorist …

Are most victims of terrorism Muslim? – BBC News –

Paris attacks: Isis responsible for more Muslim deaths than …

Jihadi attacks – November’s 5,000 deaths broken down by ..

Exploiting Emotions About Paris to Distract from Actual …


Climate Change: U.N. Extortion Racket


, ,


– Members of NGOs walk out of United Nations Climate Change Conference in arsaw.

Shakedown: Reports from the Warsaw Climate Change Conference, Poland, say that 132 nations walked out of the United Nations climate conference. Are they upset over global warming? No, they just want more money from rich countries.

As the U.N. Conference of the Parties droned on toward the end of its two-week meeting, “representatives of most of the world’s poor countries” staged a walkout over a compensation row.”

Environment and development groups together with young people, trade unions and social movements walked out of the UN climate talks in protest at what they say is the slow speed and lack of ambition of the negotiations in Warsaw.

Wearing T-shirts reading “Volveremos!” (We will return), around 800 people from organizations including Greenpeace, WWF, Oxfam,, Friends of the Earth, the Confederation and ActionAid, handed back their registration badges to the UN and left Poland’s national stadium, where the talks are being held.

Frustration with the climate talks has grown in the past two years but progress in this year’s conference of the parties (COP) has seen negotiations deadlocked in technical areas, and rich and poor countries at loggerheads over compensation and money. Anger has also mounted over the perceived closeness of governments to industrial lobbies, and because several developed countries have reneged on their commitments to cut emissions.

“Movements representing people from every corner of the Earth have decided that the best use of our time is to voluntarily withdraw from the Warsaw climate talks. This will be the first time ever that there has been a mass withdrawal from a COP,” said a WWF spokesman.

unfccc-gag-indonesia1The photos in the exhibit were on display at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Warsaw at the IBON International booth.  The name of the exhibit was titled Neoliberal Globalization and Climate Chaos.  This exhibit took  place during the High Level Sessions of the UNFCCC meeting.

“Warsaw, which should have been an important step in the just transition to a sustainable future, is on track to deliver virtually nothing. We feel that governments have given up on the process,” he said.

More specifically, they quit because they felt the rich countries weren’t pouring enough money into their treasuries — from where it typically ends up in the hands of a kleptocratic ruling class.

That, of course, is almost entirely what the global warming scare is about: wealth transfer.

The U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change does not exist to save the planet, foster environmental sustainability or protect man from himself.

The IPCC exists to move wealth from rich countries that earned it through free or almost-free markets to poor nations that can’t reach prosperity because their governments are run by socialists, statists and assorted tyrants.

Of course the IPCC exists in part to provide top-dollar jobs, and positions of influence and power for political functionaries and the well-connected who aid them.

But such a group needs a “mission” to justify its being.

The poor countries “served” by the IPCC want the rich nations’ dollars purely out of greed. They are abetted by Western officials and political activists who see the global-warming charade as a way to punish prosperous nations for the crime of being wealthy.

cecilia-rodriguez“The Polish government has done its best to turn these talks into a showcase for the coal industry. Along with backsliding by Japan, Australia and Canada, and the lack of meaningful leadership from other countries, governments here have delivered a slap in the face to those suffering as a result of dangerous climate change,” said Kumi Naidoo, director of Greenpeace International.

Hoda Baraka, global communications director for, said they were walking out because lobbying from fossil fuel companies was impeding progress at the talks.

“It has become quite flagrantly obvious that progress to reach any legally binding climate treaty is being obstructed by the lobbying forces of the fossil fuel industry. As we can see from this COP, they’ve had a very strong presence before and during.”

On Thursday, Marcin Korolec, the Polish environment minister presiding over the talks was sacked in a cabinet reshuffle, in an apparent move to accelerate shale gas operations in Poland.

Winnie Byanyima, director of Oxfam International, said: “We are walking out of these talks because governments need to know that enough is enough. People around the globe have a right to know about the desperate state of these negotiations. The stakes are too high to allow governments to make a mockery of these talks.”

Angry that capitalism has brought prosperity, these Westerners want to ensure that the U.S. is no longer an exceptional nation — just one among many stagnant countries that merely get by. They seek an equality among countries through an elaborate scheme fueled by junk science, shrieking alarms and outright fraud.

But one wealthy nation’s government might actually get it.

Australia’s representatives have treated the U.N. meeting with the irreverence and contempt that it so richly deserves. We wish others, including our own, would act as rationally.






Warsaw Climate Change Conference

COP 19 – unfccc

Negotiations in Warsaw

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)

U.N. Climate Conference

2013 United Nations Climate Change Conference

Green groups walk out of UN climate talks

Highlights of the 19th Climate Change Conference | Down …

IPCC – Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Capitalizing on chaos: Climate change and disaster capitalism

Contesting Neoliberal Education: Public Resistance and …

Governing Climate Change

The Ultimate Crisis of Neoliberal Globalization: The Case of …

Meet Cannibalistic Capitalism: Globalization’s Evil Twin

Globalization, Neoliberalism, and Climate Change

The New Kleptocracy | The Progressive Cynic


Multiple Ways Kleptocrats and Militarists Fleece Americans

Kleptocracy – Project Gutenberg Consortia Center

Types of Government

Kleptocracy: Rule by Thieves



kleptocracy-ruled-by-theivesThroughout history, humans have arranged themselves into societies based around hierarchy and a system of selecting who is allowed to wield power—these social constructs are called governments. At its best, a government exists to provide the common defense, preserve the rule of law, promote the social welfare, and do the things which private industry cannot do equitably or efficiently (ex. maintaining the roads). At its worst, a government can kill millions, promote exploitation, repress its population, and siphon resources from the citizens to the elite.

The United States was originally designed to be a form of representative democracy called a Constitutional Republic. In this form of government, citizens elect politicians to represent their interests, both on the state and federal levels—these politicians are directly accountable to their constituents. Unfortunately, as money has crept into politics and promoted an ever increasing centralization of power into the hands of a small group of elites, the United States has started to look less like a constitutional republic and more like a kleptocracy.

A Kleptocracy is a type of government where those in power have turned their authority towards the goal of syphoning wealth from the general public and giving it to the elite; the elite who benefit in a kleptocracy include those in government as well as those with significant power in the private sector. Through utilizing public funds, tax revenue, and government force for personal gain, the elite in a kleptocracy are able to accrue huge amounts of wealth and perpetuate their own political power.

I argue that the government of the United States is beginning to resemble a kleptocracy because it has begun to exhibit several of the classic characteristics which define a kleptocratic government. While no one of these characteristics alone classifies a government as a kleptocracy, the combination of characteristics paints a truly stark picture about how this country may be transforming from a democracy into a kleptocracy:

Characteristic #1: The elite in society utilize political power to enrich themselves on the backs of everybody else

In a kleptocracy, the elite in society create a vicious cycle of wealth accrual and political power. During the creation of a kleptocracy, the elite use their wealth and influence to capture the government and gain the ability to manipulate policy. Once the elite capture the government, they change policy to benefit themselves and begin to utilize public money to increase their personal profits. As their personal fortunes grow, the elite kleptocrats complete the cycle by using a portion of the money gained from controlling the government to perpetuate their political power. Once this cycle is initiated, it is very difficult to stop and usually results in widespread income inequality within a country.

During the last decade, elites in the United States have been extremely successful in manipulating public policy to favor their interests. By changing public policy into a method of increasing their wealth (even at the expense of the country), American elites have begun to make the United States look very much like a kleptocracy:

  • Tax rates on wealthy Americans and corporations are at a record low and it appears virtually impossible that this will change significantly in the near future. This decrease in tax income taken from the rich is economically unjustifiable, yet has been pushed by many wealthy individuals, as well as the politicians who are bought by them.
  • Corporate accountability has been drastically reduced in the United States; this reduction benefits American elites because it allows their corporate interests to produce more profit for them, without having to worry about ethics or the danger of being sued. The perfect example of this destruction of corporate accountability is the lack of charges and consequences on the banks after the 2008 economic crash. Despite the presence of a great deal of evidence proving the fraud perpetrated by the banks in the lead-up to the 2008 crash, no bankers have been prosecuted and no banks have been broken up.
  • Government contract are given to corporations which have economic connections to political elites. In the last decade, American elites have directed ever more government contracts to corporations which they control, or which give them money. There are innumerable examples of this cronyism, but the largest example is that of Cheney and Halliburton. While Cheney—the ex-CEO and current stockholder of Halliburton—was vice president, Halliburton received billions in government contracts and preferential treatment in environmental regulations.

Public policy in the United States has been co-opted and redirected to increase the wealth of a small minority of elites. The good of society has taken a backseat to interests of the elite and the United States is suffering for it. When the political and economic elite of a society corrupt policy to the degree which we have seen in recent years, the corrupted government ceases to be a populist government and becomes a kleptocracy.

Characteristic #2: Political power is condensed so that a small group of elites hold a majority of the control over government

In order for the elite in a kleptocracy to sustain their policy agendas and control over the government, they must keep political and economic power centralized within a small group of people. In most cases, kleptocrats will gain control over a government by either becoming the political power structure (ex. become a dictator) or utilizing their resources to gain control over a political party (ex. buying numerous politicians). The control over government held by elites in a kleptocracy allows them to manipulate public policy and sustain their political power.

In the United States, the rise of the super-PAC and demise of campaign finance laws are the two situations which have driven our democracy towards kleptocracy; we still have the illusion of democracy, but any choice which we are given is likely to either be bought by the elites, or unlikely to be elected because of massive opposition by moneyed interests. Elites and corporate organizations exert political power through giving money (Read: bribes) to politicians as well as through running political ads to influence voters.

During election seasons, moneyed interests pour huge amounts of money into running deceptive ads. Deceptive advertisements trick people into voting against their own interest and into voting for the interests of those in power. Given the abysmally low level of knowledge that the general public has surrounding public policy and civics, it is very easy for deceptive ads to sway marginal (independent) voters away from non-bough politicians.

Once in office, American politicians are faced with the choice to vote their conscience, doing what is best for their constituents, and the choice to enrich themselves by doing the bidding of the elite. Unfortunately, this lure of money is most often too strong for people to resist, and most politicians are bought by somebody. Once bought, these politicians no longer work for the people, but rather become the employees of moneyed elites.

With the elimination of campaign finance regulations allowing a tsunami of secret money to flood the political scene, American politics have become terrible corrupt. Money may not buy everything, but, if you have enough, it can buy a government. If the kleptocrats behind the politicians are the true power, election result don’t matter—any corrupt politician voted out of office will simply be replaced by the next puppet of the kleptocratic elite.

Characteristic #3: Programs which benefit those who are not elite are cut in order to increase the amount of money available to be shifted to the elite

In a kleptocracy, the goal of government is not to help the population or sustain a functioning society, but rather to keep feeding the elites in control of society. To a kleptocrat, any program which does not benefit them is waste and must be cut, regardless of its benefit to society. Any money “wasted” on the non-elites of society is money which the kleptocrats could be putting into their pockets.

Over the past several years, mainstream American politics has been focused upon cutting the deficit and dealing with the national debt. Political elites (and corporate interests) have convinced large portions of the population that cutting from social programs and entitlements is necessary in order to protect the country from a debt crisis. At the same time that these elites are proposing draconian cuts to programs which benefit the average American, they protect programs which give money to corporations and refuse to consider any possible tax cuts on the wealthy; corporate subsidies, military contracts, and tax cuts on the wealthy bear the lion’s share of the blame for the current budget problems of the United States, yet political elites are focused upon cutting the small and effective social programs which support average Americans. Put plainly, these political elites are not looking out for the best interest of the country and are simply helping (or part of) the kleptocratic class which has captured the American government.

If American political elites truly wished to deal with the deficit, they wouldn’t be protecting the multi-trillion dollar Bush tax cuts—tax cuts with no actual value to society—while proposing cutting millions of dollars from the school lunch program. The only possible justifications for such budget choices are either absolute ignorance of economics or a desire to protect the elites at the detriment of everybody else. Any programs not benefiting the American elite are being cut, just so that the elites are not forced to support anybody else in society and to free up even more money to give to them through tax cuts (ex. the Ryan Budget).

Characteristic #4: Dissent from the status-quo is squashed by institutions of the state.

KleptocracySince a kleptocracy’s goal is to pander to the interests of an elite few, any dissent by the public is automatically portrayed as extreme, delegitimized and suppressed. Kleptocrats don’t care about the opinions of their citizens, nor do they wish for people to get organized in order to protect their interests. Any such dissent has the potential to disrupt the status quo, thus reducing personal profits by the kleptocrat or even resulting in an overthrow of the kleptocracy. In order to suppress uprising, kleptocrats will often utilize a combination of media control and police force in order to disrupt protesters and prevent the average citizens from becoming mobilized.

The reaction to the “Occupy” movement by American police forces and federal agencies has illustrated just how a kleptocracy will deal with protests against the status quo. Regardless of ones’ opinions on protest movements—like the Occupy Movement—it is absolutely inarguable that they have the right to assemble and protest in the United States. Regardless of the constitutional protections on their ability to protest, the Occupy movement spreads a message which is very inconvenient to kleptocratic elites, thus elites dedicated a significant amount of effort into attacking the Occupiers.

At the outset of the Occupy Movement, the mainstream media either refused to cover the protests or covered them in a dismissive manner. Common memes that were used to attack the Occupiers included calling them “dirty hippies”, “bums”, “unfocused”, or disorganized and not having a coherent message. Media corporations are often controlled by the very elites who control politics, so it is well within these elites’ power to affect media coverage.

In concert with the media blackout on the Occupy Movement, police and federal law enforcement agencies were tasked with suppressing the occupations. The Occupiers faced numerous mass-arrests and police harassment in cities across the country; these arrests were coordinated across cities by federal agencies, despite the fact that there was no justification for such federal involvement.

In modern America, protests which challenge the status quo are constantly harried by federal and state interference. In essence, protest is allowed only if it supports or does not threaten the interests of those in power (ex. abortion protests are okay because they don’t attack the moneyed elite).


In the new American kleptocracy, elites are given every economic advantage and have near-absolute control over policy. Public policy is becoming increasingly tailored to the benefit of the elite kleptocrats, and the rest of society is left to suffer the consequences of neglect. Unless we do something to change the current path of our country, we are facing a situation where our country will become little more than a field for the wealthy to harvest and our citizens little more than serfs, indentured to those with all of the power in society.







An Important Distinction: Democracy versus Republic

America is a Constitutional Republic . . . NOT a Democracy

What is Representative Democracy?


The Progressive Cynic

An Important Distinction: Democracy versus Republic

The Cartel Like Nature of Belize’s Political Ruling Class. A …


Multiple Ways Kleptocrats and Militarists Fleece Americans

Kleptocracy – Project Gutenberg Consortia Center

Types of Government

Kleptocracy and Crapocracy – Power and markets

Last Year Saw the Biggest Jump in People Killed By Terrorism Ever!


, , , , , ,– A man walks past blood stains and rubble after twin suicide blasts at Kantin Kwari textile market in northern Nigeria’s commercial city of Kano on December 10, 2014.

Boko Haram, not ISIS, is world’s deadliest terrorist group

The Institute for Economics and Peace picked quite a week to release its annual Global Terrorism Index. The report, which came out on Wednesday, tracks incidents in 2014, so it doesn’t account for last week’s Paris attacks or other major incidents this year like the Charlie Hebdo massacre and the Metrojet bombing.

Despite looking slightly dated because of the dramatic global events of the last month, the index does reveal some important trends in global terrorism, many of which run contrary to how the problem is normally discussed in American political discourse.

The big headline is that terrorism is becoming much deadlier—deaths linked to terrorism increased by 80 percent to 32,658 in 2014, the largest increase ever recorded. Nigeria’s Boko Haram overtook ISIS last year to become the world’s deadliest terrorist group, killing 6,644 people. The group’s threat has hardly diminished this year as two deadly bombings this week show. Together, the two groups were responsible for more than half of all fatalities and both aimed their violence at private citizens rather than government or military targets to a much greater extent than other groups. While President Obama reminded Americans this week that al-Qaida and its affiliates are still a threat to western countries despite all the attention on ISIS, the GTI shows that the terror network wasn’t even one of the five deadliest groups last year: Those were, in order, Boko Haram, ISIS, the Taliban, Nigeria’s Fulani militants, and Somalia’s al-Shabaab.

Terrorism also remains a highly localized problem, with just five countries—Afghanistan, Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan, and Syria—accounting for 78 percent of terrorism deaths and 57 percent of all attacks, but it’s getting less localized. The number of countries suffering over 500 terrorism deaths increased from five to 11 last year. The countries with at least one death increased by eight to 67.

Still, jihadist attacks in the U.S., the form of terrorism that gets by far the most global media attention, have continued to be relatively rare. Attacks in western countries have accounted for just 2.6 percent of terrorism deaths over the past 15 years–82 percent of those were on 9/11. In 2014, they were just 0.11 percent. Over the past 10 years, attacks motivated by Islamic extremism accounted for only 19 percent of terrorism fatalities, while political extremist attacks, such as Anders Breivik’s killing of 77 people in Norway in 2011, were the deadliest.

Most (70 percent) attacks in the west are the work of “lone wolves” rather than organized networks. The United States was the deadliest western country for terrorism in 2014, with 18 fatalities in 19 attacks. Four of these incidents had a “jihadist element,” according to the report. The rest were “largely motivated by right wing extremism or white supremacists.” The worst incident was the killing of two police officers and one bystander by anti-government extremists at a Las Vegas pizza restaurant on June 8.

The two attacks in Paris alone will make 2015’s numbers for western countries look very different. The question is whether they will come to be seen anomalous catastrophic attacks, like the 2004 Madrid train bombing or the 2009 Fort Hood massacre, or the start of a more permanent trend. The report notes that 21 plots linked to ISIS in the west in 2014 all happened after September when the group issued a call for attacks on western countries. ISIS inflicted far more casualties on the battlefield in Syria and Iraq than by terrorist attacks in 2014, but the events of the past month could signify that the group’s emphasis is shifting.

It remains to be seen whether violence perpetrated by so-called ISIS or other jihadist groups becomes less rare in western countries, but it’s a safe to assume that people in the countries where these groups are based will continue to be their main targets.





Global Terrorism Index

Global Terrorism Index: Nigerian Fulani militants named as fourth deadliest terror group in world

Deadly Siege Ends After Assault on Hotel in Mali

Boko Haram, not ISIS, is world’s deadliest terrorist group

Mali hotel attack is latest to rattle global sense of security

Mali attack underscores terror threats in Africa, AFRICOM

Mali hotel attack puts veteran militant back in spotlight


About the Command | United States Africa Command – Africom

What We Do | United States Africa Command – Africom

MIT Scientist: Glyphosate to Cause Autism in 50% of Children by 2025


, , , , ,

pesticides_spraying_mask_735_3501-735x350The chemical brew is sickening us all!

As if to corroborate a growing trend in rising autism rates, a senior research scientist from MIT has warned that of all children, a disquieting 50% will be autistic by 2025.

What’s the culprit? Monsanto’s best selling Round-Up containing glyphosate is top on the list.

Dr. Stephanie Seneff, who made these remarks during a panel presentation in Groton, MA, specifically cites the Monsanto herbicide, Roundup, as the culprit for the escalating incidence of autism and other neurological disorders. Roundup, which was introduced in the 1970’s, contains the chemical glyphosate, which is the focal point for Seneff’s concerns. Roundup was originally restricted to use on weeds, as glyphosate kills plants. However, Roundup is now in regular use with crops. With the coming of GMO’s, plants such as soy and corn were bioengineered to tolerate glyphosate, and its use dramatically increased. From 2001 to 2007, glyphosate use doubled, reaching 180 to 185 million pounds in the U.S. alone in 2007.

If you don’t consume corn- on- the -cob or toasted soybeans, however, you are hardly exempt from the potential affects of consuming glyphosate. Wheat is now sprayed with Roundup right before it is harvested, making any consumption of non- organic wheat bread a sure source for the chemical. In addition, any products containing corn syrup, such as soft drinks, are also carrying a payload of glyphosate.

According to studies cited by Seneff, glyphosate engages “gut bacteria” in a process known as the Shikimate pathway. This enables the chemical to interfere with the biochemistry of bacteria in our GI tract, resulting in the depletion of essential amino acids.

Monsanto has maintained that glyphosate is safe for human consumption, as humans do not have the shikimate pathway. Bacteria, however, does—including the flora that constitutes “gut bacteria.”

It is this ability to affect gut bacteria that Seneff claims is the link which allows the chemical to get on board and wreak further damage. The connection between intestinal flora and neurological functioning is an ongoing topic of research. According to a number of studies, glyphosate depletes the amino acids tyrosine, tryptophan, and phenylalanine, which can then contribute to obesity, depression, autism, inflammatory bowel disease, Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s.

Monsanto disagrees. The food and chemical giant has constructed a webpage with links to scientific studies pronouncing the safety of glyphosate.

Other science writers have also taken up the Monsanto banner, scoffing at the scientific studies that prompted Seneff to make her claims. “They made it up!” pronounced Huffpost science writer Tamar Haspel, in an article thin on analysis but heavy on declarative prose.

Others, such as Skeptoid writer and PhD physicist Eric Hall, take a more measured approach, and instead focus on the studies which prompted the glyphosate concerns. According to Hall, Seneff is making an error known as the “correlation/causation error,” in which causality is inaccurately concluded when there exists only the fact that two separate items—in this case, the increased use of glyphosate and the increased incidence of autism.

Seneff’s pronouncements focus specifically on the glyphosate issue. As we know, there are other potential tributaries which may be feeding the rise in autism and also causing age-related neurological conditions, such as Alzheimer’s. These may include contents of vaccines, aluminum cooking ware as well as other potential sources for chemical consumption.


Some individuals, such as M.D. and radio host Rima E. Laibow have speculated on the intentionality behind this ostensible chemical siege against our gray matter. Laibow believes that the impetus may be to create an entire class of autistic individuals who will be suited only for certain types of work.

This harks back, eerily, to Aldous Huxley’s classic Brave New World, in which individuals were preprogrammed from “conception” for eventual placement in one of five groups, designated as Alpha, Beta, and so on down to Epsilon, based on their programmed brain power. In Huxley’s dystopian world, this class delineation by intellectual ability enabled society to function more smoothly.

Whatever may driving the autistic/Alzheimer’s diesel train, one thing is for certain: the spectre of half of our children coming into the world with significant brain damage constitutes a massive and undeniable wound to humanity. The rate of autism has skyrocketed from roughly one in every two thousand in the 1970’s to the current rate of one in every sixty eight. Alzheimer’s has become almost universal in the elderly. Seneff’s predictions can only be ignored at grave risk to the human race.

The overuse of glyphosate in our food supply is causing diseases like Alzheimer’s, autism, cancer, cardiovascular disease, and nutrition al deficiencies, among others. Seneff, a research biologist who has published over 170 scholarly peer-reviewed articles, and has studied these diseases for more than three decades, points to GMOs as a major contributor to neurological diseases in children.

At a recent conference, Dr. Seneff declared:

“At today’s rate, by 2025, one in two children will be autistic.”

Currently, one in every 68 children in the US is born with autism. It is currently the fastest growing developmental disability, with rates having increased by almost 120% since the year 2000. In ten years, the cost of treating those affected by autism will cost us $400 billion annually, in addition to the untold emotional costs which families pay daily to live with and support a child with autism.

Dr. Seneff noted that the symptoms of glyphosate toxicity closely resemble those of autism. She also presented data at the conference which shows an oddly consistent correlation between the use of Roundup on crops (and the creation of Roundup-ready GMO crop seeds) with rising rates of autism.

The correlation between the two include biomarkers such as zinc and iron deficiency, low serum sulfate, seizures, and mitochondrial disorders.


A fellow panelist who was in attendance reported that after Dr. Seneff’s presentation:

“All of the 70 or so people in attendance were squirming, likely because they now had serious misgivings about serving their kids, or themselves, anything with corn or soy, which are nearly all genetically modified and thus tainted with Roundup and its glyphosate.”

Over 200 million pounds of glyphosate poison is a chemical attack on America

The following map, compiled by the USDA, shows the use of glyphosate across America:

Glyphosate-MapDr. Seneff pointed out that much of the food on grocery store shelves contains GM corn and soy, all with small amounts of glyphosate traces in them. This includes soft drinks sweetened with high fructose (and genetically modified) corn syrup, chips, cereals, candies, and even soy protein bars. Much of our beef and poultry is also fed a diet of GM corn and soy, which contain glyphosate traces as well.Think your bread is safe? Think again.

Wheat is often sprayed with Round Up chemicals just prior to harvest, which means unless your bread or wheat products are non-GM certified, and organic, they likely contain traces of glyphosate.

When you add it all up – we are dining on glyphosate in almost every food we eat, and it is causing serious illness. Dr. Seneff says that though the traces of glyphosate in each food may not be large, it is their cumulative effect that is of concern. Her worry seems well-founded considering that pregnant women have been found to have glyphosate in their blood and urine, and it has even showed up in fetal cells.

Furthermore, a relatively recent study showed that pregnant women living near farms where pesticides are applied have a 60% increased risk of children having an autism spectrum disorder.

Although glyphosate is not likely the only chemical to blame for increased autism rates, it tops the list of unsavory, neurologically-altering substances.

In addition to this toxic environment, there is a arguable link between vaccines and autism. A former CDC employee blew the lid off one such story finding the connection, and to it can be added other studies now showing a link between children’s exposure to pesticides and autism.

Add to glyphosate chemicals and vaccines which contain mercury – PCBs, PBDEs, and phthalates, and a perfect brew for autism rates to soar becomes apparent.

A few months ago, the USDA released a study finding that although there were detectable levels of pesticide residue in more than half of food tested by the agency, 99% of samples taken were found to be within levels the government deems “safe.” How can the government deem something safe if it has never been tested singularly – let alone how the effects from multiple exposures (PCBs, mercury, glyphosate, etc.) can devastate a child’s immune system and neurological soundness when considered together?

Though autism is a complex problem with many potential causes. Dr. Seneff’s data is particularly significant considering how close the correlation is—and because the claim is supported by a scientist with impeccable credentials.






Scholarly articles for Glyphosate and autism

Genetically engineered crops, glyphosate and the deterioration of health in the United States of America

NL Swanson, A Leu, J Abrahamson… – Journal of Organic …, 2014 –
10 and conditions associated with a Western diet, which include gastrointestinal disorders, obesity,
diabetes, heart disease, depression, autism, infertility, cancer and Alzheimer’s disease. We explain
the documented effects of glyphosate and its ability to induce disease, and we

[HTML] Aluminum and Glyphosate Can Synergisti-cally Induce Pineal Gland Pathology: Con-nection to Gut Dysbiosis and Neurological Disease

S Seneff, N Swanson, C Li – Agricultural Sciences, 2015 –
Gastrointestinal symptoms are strongly correlated with autism [93] , and this could lead to treatment
with providing a ready source of aluminum, chelated by either citrate or glyphosate, to gain can
lead to constipation [94] , which is a common symptom among autistic children [95

[HTML] Glyphosate, neurological diseases–and the scientific method

MA Faria – Surgical neurology international, 2015 –
Mn impairment is a plausible mechanism by which glyphosate may cause many of the observed
symptoms of autism, and we hope that our paper will inspire others to investigate this idea more
fully. We anticipate that parents of autistic children will want to get their children’s


Maternal residence near agricultural pesticide applications and autism spectrum disorders among children in the California Central Valley

EM Roberts, PB English, JK Grether… – Environmental health …, 2007 – JSTOR
Research I Childrens Health Maternal Residence Near Agricultural Pesticide Applications and
Autism Spectrum Disorders among Children in the California Central Valley KEY WORDS: autism
spectrum disorders, health surveillance, methods, organochlorines, pesticides.

[HTML] GE food: A Trojan horse–what is it sneaking into us?

F Rowson –
have found high levels of Sutterella species in autistic children but not in non-autistic children.
5. Krüger, M et al, ‘Glyphosate suppresses the antagonistic effect of Enterococcus spp fecal short
chain fatty acid and ammonia concentrations in children with autism spectrum disorder

[PDF] Is encephalopathy a mechanism to renew sulfate in autism?

S Seneff, A Lauritzen, RM Davidson, L Lentz-Marino – Entropy, 2013 –
Remarkably, these mice recapitulated “almost the full range of autistic symptoms, including
impairments in social A case study of a 3-year-old boy with infantile autism and a severe eating
There may be a connection with glyphosate here as well, since a species of Pseudomonas

[PDF] A comparison of temporal trends in United States autism prevalence to trends in suspected environmental factors

CD Nevison – Environ Health, 2014 –
Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), cumulative aluminum adjuvants, cumulative total
immunizations, glyphosate, maternal obesity. This result indicates that the IDEA definition of autism
in California has expanded from full syndrome Autistic Disorder (the only

… detection, quantitation, and phylogenetic characterization of Sutterella species in intestinal biopsy samples from children with autism and gastrointestinal disturbances

BL Williams, M Hornig, T Parekh, WI Lipkin – MBio, 2012 – Am Soc Microbiol
Application of Novel PCR-Based Methods for Detection, Quantitation, and
Phylogenetic Characterization of Sutterella Species in Intestinal Biopsy Samples
from Children with Autism and Gastrointestinal Disturbances.

A microbial association with autism

JL Benach, E Li, MM McGovern – MBio, 2012 – Am Soc Microbiol
of ASD. These include autistic disorder (AD), Asperger syndrome (AS), and pervasive
developmental disorder-not otherwise specified (PDD-NOS), or atypical autism (1).
Signs of autism may be present in infancy. However, many

Stephanie Seneff’s Home Page –

Information on Glyphosate (Roundup)

Glyphosate, Roundup, Glyphosate-Tolerance GM Soybeans, Chemical Extracted Soybean Food Oil/Soybean Powder Cause Serious Harm to Health of American/Chinese People. Compiled and translated by I-wan, Chen ( (Download)
Glyphosate: The “Safe” Herbicide that’s Making Us All Sick. July, 2015. Hawaii tour, sponsored in part by Seeds of Truth. (Video of Presentation) (Powerpoint Slides) (PDF Version)
Roundup and GMO and the Rise of Modern Disease. Jan. 22, 2015. Talk in Honolulu, HI, sponsored by Seeds of Truth. (Powerpoint Slides) (PDF Version)
Roundup and GMOs: Are We Gambling with the Future of Food? July 29, 2014, Talk presented at the National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan (Powerpoint Slides) (PDF Version)
Presentation at an Informational Hearing on Genetically Modified Organisms for the Agricultural and Rural Affairs Committee of the Pennsylvania legislature. (Powerpoint Slides) (PDF Version)
Is Roundup the Toxic Chemical that’s Making Us All Sick? June 5, 2014, Groton School, Campbell Performing Arts Center, Groton MA. (Powerpoint Slides) (PDF Version)
“Sulfate Deficiency in Neurological Disease Following Aluminum and Glyphosate Exposure,” Webinar presented on June 2, 2015, hosted by Jessica Sherman. (Powerpoint Slides) (PDF Version)
Presentation on Wednesday, May 27, 2015 in Taiwan, organized by the Green Formosa Front and sponsored by the HaoRan Foundation. (Powerpoint Slides) (PDF Version)
Presentation on glyphosate on April 28, 2014 hosted by the MIT and Wellesley Alumni Associations (Powerpoint Slides) (PDF Version) Why Soy is Unhealthy: It’s NOT what you Think! Slides of talk presented at Yale’s 12th annual “Unite for Sight” Conference, Mar. 29, 2015. (Powerpoint Slides)
Presentation on April 12, 2014 at Unite For Sight’s 11th annual Global Health & Innovation Conference. (Powerpoint Slides) (PDF Version)
Presentation on March 26, 2014 at International Symposium on Vaccines in Nice, France: A Role for the Pineal Gland in Neurological Damage Following Aluminum-adjuvanted Vaccination (Powerpoint Slides) (PDF Version)
Presentation on March 16, 2014 at Physicians’ Roundtable Conference in Tampa, FL. (Powerpoint Slides) (PDF Version)
Presentation on Oct 16, 2013 hosted by the Wellesley chapter of the League of Women Voters. Video. Slides.
326 page document by Sayer Ji – many references to the literature on why not to vaccinate. Click Here
Nancy Swanson, Andre Leu, Jon Abrahamson and Bradley Wallet. Genetically engineered crops, glyphosate and the deterioration of health in the United States of America. Journal of Organic Systems, 9(2), 2014. Click Here
Compilation (by Rosemary Mason MB ChB FRCA) of data worldwide on effects of glyphosate on human health. Click Here Former Monsanto employee put in charge of GMO papers at journal Click Here Scientific journal withdraws Seralini paper on Roundup toxicity Click Here Autism Rates and Glyphosate Application Rates to Corn and Soy in the U.S. as A Function of Time. Click Here Slides Presented to MIT Faculty at CSAIL Offsite Meeting on May 17, 2013, on autism and glyphosate. (Powerpoint Slides) (PDF Version)

Meet the Controversial MIT Scientist Who Claims She …

Dr Stephanie Seneff –

Scholarly articles for autism caused by PCBs, PBDEs, and phthalates

Scholarly articles for Roundup chemicals and autism

Glyphosate Found in Feeding Tube Liquid Given to Sick Children in Hospitals

New Study Links Glyphosate (Roundup) To Cancer of the Lymph Tissue

Cancer incidence among glyphosate-exposed pesticide

USGS Release: Widely Used Herbicide Commonly Found in …

Sick People Have High Levels of Glyphosate in Urine

Natural Society

Monsanto Glyphosate Roundup Herbicide Triggers Autism

50,000 People With Autism Need Jobs This Year. Here’s …

Exploiting Emotions About Paris to Distract from Actual Culprits Who Empowered ISIS


, , ,

Paris shrineWhistleblowers are always accused of helping America’s enemies (top Nixon aides accused Daniel Ellsberg of being a Soviet spy and causing the deaths of Americans with his leak); it’s just the tactical playbook that’s automatically used. So it’s of course unsurprising that ever since Edward Snowden’s whistleblowing enabled newspapers around the world to report on secretly implemented programs of mass surveillance, he has been accused by “officials” and their various media allies of Helping The Terrorists™.

Still, I was a bit surprised just by how quickly and blatantly — how shamelessly — some of them jumped to exploit the emotions prompted by the carnage in France to blame Snowden: doing so literally as the bodies still lay on the streets of Paris. At first, the tawdry exploiters were the likes of crazed ex-intelligence officials (former CIA chief James Woolsey, who once said Snowden “should be hanged by his neck until he is dead” and now has deep ties to private NSA contractors, along with Iranobsessed Robert Baer); former Bush/Cheney apparatchiks (ex-White House spokesperson and current Fox personality Dana Perino); right-wing polemicists fired from BuzzFeed for plagiarism; and obscure Fox News comedians (Perino’s co-host). So it was worth ignoring save for the occasional Twitter retort.

But now we’ve entered the inevitable “U.S. Officials Say” stage of the “reporting” on the Paris attack — i.e., journalists mindlessly and uncritically repeat whatever U.S. officials whisper in their ear about what happened. So now credible news sites are regurgitating the claim that the Paris Terrorists were enabled by Snowden leaks — based on no evidence or specific proof of any kind, needless to say, but just the unverified, obviously self-serving assertions of government officials. But much of the U.S. media loves to repeat rather than scrutinize what government officials tell them to say. So now this accusation has become widespread and is thus worth examining with just some of the actual evidence.

One key premise here seems to be that prior to the Snowden reporting, The Terrorists helpfully and stupidly used telephones and unencrypted emails to plot, so Western governments were able to track their plotting and disrupt at least large-scale attacks. That would come as a massive surprise to the victims of the attacks of 2002 in Bali, 2004 in Madrid, 2005 in London, 2008 in Mumbai, and April 2013 at the Boston Marathon. How did the multiple perpetrators of those well-coordinated attacks — all of which were carried out prior to Snowden’s June 2013 revelations — hide their communications from detection?

This is a glaring case where propagandists can’t keep their stories straight. The implicit premise of this accusation is that The Terrorists didn’t know to avoid telephones or how to use effective encryption until Snowden came along and told them. Yet we’ve been warned for years and years before Snowden that The Terrorists are so diabolical and sophisticated that they engage in all sorts of complex techniques to evade electronic surveillance.

By itself, the glorious mythology of How the U.S. Tracked Osama bin Laden should make anyone embarrassed to make these claims. After all, the central premise of that storyline is that bin Laden only used trusted couriers to communicate because al Qaeda knew for decades to avoid electronic means of communication because the U.S. and others could spy on those communications. Remember all that? Zero Dark Thirty and the “harsh but effective” interrogation of bin Laden’s “official messenger”?

Any terrorist capable of tying his own shoe — let alone carrying out a significant attack — has known for decades that speaking on open telephone and internet lines was to be avoided due to U.S. surveillance. As one Twitter commentator put it yesterday when mocking this new It’s-Snowden’s-Fault game: “Dude, the drug dealers from the Wire knew not to use cell phones.”

The Snowden revelations weren’t significant because they told The Terrorists their communications were being monitored; everyone — especially The Terrorists — has known that forever. The revelations were significant because they told the world that the NSA and its allies were collecting everyone else’s internet communications and activities.

The evidence proving this — that The Terrorists have been successfully using sophisticated encryption and other surveillance-avoidance methods for many years prior to Snowden — is so overwhelming that nobody should be willing to claim otherwise with a straight face. As but one of countless examples, here’s a USA Today article from February 2001 — more than 12 years before anyone knew the name “Edward Snowden” — warning that al Qaeda was able to “outfox law enforcement” by hiding its communications behind sophisticated internet encryption:

The Christian Science Monitor similarly reported on February 1, 2001, that “the head of the U.S. National Security Agency has publicly complained that al Qaeda’s sophisticated use of the internet and encryption techniques have defied Western eavesdropping attempts.”

After 9/11, we were constantly told about how wily and advanced The Terrorists were when it came to hiding their communications from us. One scary graphic from the November 2001 issue of Network World laid it out this way:

All the way back in the mid-1990s, the Clinton administration exploited the fears prompted by Timothy McVeigh’s Oklahoma City attack to demand backdoor access to all internet communications. This is what then-FBI Director Louis Freeh told the Senate Judiciary Committee in July 1997 — almost 20 years ago:

The looming spectre of the widespread use of robust, virtually uncrackable encryption is one of the most difficult problems confronting law enforcement as the next century approaches. Louis FreehAt stake are some of our most valuable and reliable investigative techniques, and the public safety of our citizens. We believe that unless a balanced approach to encryption is adopted that includes a viable key management infrastructure, the ability of law enforcement to investigate and sometimes prevent the most serious crimes and terrorism will be severely impaired. Our national security will also be jeopardized. 

How dumb do they think people are to count on them forgetting all of this, and to believe now that The Terrorists only learned to avoid telephones and use encryption once Snowden came along? Ironically, the Snowden archive itself is full of documents from NSA and its British counterpart, GCHQ expressing deep concern that they cannot penetrate the communications of Terrorists because of how sophisticated their surveillance-avoidance methods are (obviously, those documents pre-date Snowden’s public disclosures).

As but one example, the GCHQ files contain what the agency calls a “Jihadist Handbook” of security measures, dated 2003, that instructs terror operatives in the use of sophisticated surveillance-avoidance techniques that — as we noted when we first reported it — are very similar to what GCHQ still tells its own operatives to use:

In light of all this, how can “officials” and their media stenographers persist in trying to convince people of such a blatant, easily disproven falsehood: namely, that Terrorists learned to hide their communications from Snowden’s revelations? They do it because of how many benefits there are from swindling people to believe this.

To begin with, U.S officials are eager here to demonize far more than just Snowden. They want to demonize encryption generally as well as any companies that offer it. Indeed, as these media accounts show, they’ve been trying for two decades to equate the use of encryption — anything that keeps them out of people’s private online communications — with aiding and abetting The Terrorists. It’s not just Snowden but also their own long-time Surveillance State partners — particular Apple and Google — who are now being depicted as Terrorist Lovers for enabling people to have privacy on the internet through encryption products.

As I documented last November, the key tactic of American and British officials is to wage a P.R. war against Silicon Valley companies who offer encryption by accusing them of Helping The Terrorists. Last September, FBI Director James Comey actually said, “What concerns me about this is companies marketing something expressly to allow people to hold themselves beyond the law,” while the New York Times gave anonymity in that article to a security official to link the new iPhone 6 to terrorism. The head of GCHQ called Apple and Google “the command-and-control networks of choice for terrorists and criminals” as part of what the New York Times called “a campaign by intelligence services in Britain and the United States against pressure to rein in their digital surveillance after disclosures by the American former contractor Edward J. Snowden.”
Then there’s the blame-shifting benefit. For most major terror attacks, the perpetrators were either known to Western security agencies or they had ample reason to watch them. All three perpetrators of the Charlie Hebdo massacre “were known to French authorities,” as was the thwarted train attacker in July and at least one of the Paris attackers. These agencies receive billions and billions of dollars every year and radical powers, all in the name of surveilling Bad People and stopping attacks.

So when they fail in their ostensible duty, and people die because of that failure, it’s a natural instinct to blame others: Don’t look to us; it’s Snowden’s fault, or the fault of Apple, or the fault of journalists, or the fault of encryption designers, or anyone’s fault other than ours. If you’re a security agency after a successful Terror attack, you want everyone looking elsewhere, finding all sorts of culprits other than those responsible for stopping such attacks.

Above all, there’s the desperation to prevent people from asking how and why ISIS was able to spring up seemingly out of nowhere and be so powerful, able to blow up a Russian passenger plane, a market in Beirut, and the streets of Paris in a single week. That’s the one question Western officials are most desperate not to be asked, so directing people’s ire to Edward Snowden and Apple is beneficial in the extreme.

The origins of ISIS are not even in dispute. The Washington Post put it simply: “almost all of the leaders of the Islamic State are former Iraqi officers, including the members of its shadowy military and security committees, and the majority of its emirs and princes.” Even Tony Blair — Tony Blair — admits that there’d be no ISIS without the invasion of Iraq: ‘I think there are elements of truth in that,’ he said when asked whether the Iraq invasion had been the ‘principal cause’ of the rise of ISIS.” As The New Yorker’s John Cassidy put it in August:

By destroying the Iraqi state and setting off reverberations across the region that, ultimately, led to a civil war in Syria, the 2003 invasion created the conditions in which a movement like ISIS could thrive. And, by turning public opinion in the United States and other Western countries against anything that even suggests a prolonged military involvement in the Middle East, the war effectively precluded the possibility of a large-scale multinational effort to smash the self-styled caliphate.

Then there’s the related question of how ISIS has become so well-armed and powerful. There are many causes, but a leading one is the role played by the U.S. and its “allies in the region” (i.e., Gulf tyrannies) in arming them, unwittingly or (in the case of its “allies in the region”otherwise, by dumping weapons and money into the region with little regard to where they go (even U.S. officials openly acknowledge that their own allies have funded ISIS). But the U.S.’s own once-secret documents strongly suggest U.S. complicity as well, albeit inadvertent, in the rise of ISIS, as powerfully demonstrated by this extraordinary four-minute clip of Al Jazeera’s Mehdi Hasan with Gen. Michael Flynn, former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency:

Given all this, is there any mystery why “U.S. officials” and the military-intelligence regime, let alone Iraq War-advocating hacks like Jim Woolsey and Dana Perino, are desperate to shift blame away from themselves for ISIS and terror attacks and onto Edward Snowden, journalism about surveillance, or encryption-providing tech companies? Wouldn’t you if you were them? Imagine simultaneously devoting all your efforts to depicting ISIS as the Greatest and Most Evil Threat Ever, while knowing the vital role you played in its genesis and growth.

The clear, overwhelming evidence — compiled above — demonstrates how much deceit their blame-shifting accusations require. But the more important point of inquiry is to ask why they are so eager to ensure that everyone but themselves receives scrutiny for what is happening. The answer to that question is equally clear, and disturbing in the extreme.




2012 Defense Intelligence Agency document: West will …

The Intercept

Defense Intelligence Agency: “Establish a Salafist …

Now the truth emerges: how the US fuelled the rise of Isis in …

Secret Pentagon Report Reveals US “Created” ISIS As A “Tool” To Overthrow Syria’s President Assad

Putin: ISIL Financed by 40 Countries, including G20 Member States

Paris Attack Reported Before it Happened

Secret Pentagon Report Reveals US “Created” ISIS As A “Tool” To Overthrow Syria’s President Assad


, , , , ,

Secret_Pentagon_Report_RevealsThe government recently produced documents to Judicial Watch in response to a freedom of information suit which show that the West has long supported ISIS.   The documents were written by the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency on August 12, 2012 … years before ISIS burst onto the world stage.

From the first sudden, and quite dramatic, appearance of the fanatical Islamic group known as ISIS which was largely unheard of until a year ago, on the world’s stage and which promptly replaced the worn out and tired al Qaeda as the world’s terrorist bogeyman, we suggested that the “straight to beheading YouTube clip” purpose behind the Saudi Arabia-funded Islamic State was a simple one: use the Jihadists as the vehicle of choice to achieve a political goal: depose of Syria’s president Assad, who for years has stood in the way of a critical Qatari natural gas pipeline, one which could dethrone Russia as Europe’s dominant – and belligerent – source of energy, reaching an interim climax with the unsuccessful Mediterranean Sea military build up of 2013, which nearly resulted in quasi-world war.

The narrative and the plotline were so transparent, even Russia saw right through them. Recall from September of last year:

If the West bombs Islamic State militants in Syria without consulting Damascus, LiveLeak reports that the anti-ISIS alliance may use the occasion to launch airstrikes against President Bashar Assad’s forces, according to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. Clearly comprehending that Obama’s new strategy against ISIS in Syria is all about pushing the Qatar pipeline through (as was the impetus behind the 2013 intervention push), Russia is pushing back noting that the it is using ISIS as a pretext for bombing Syrian government forces and warning that “such a development would lead to a huge escalation of conflict in the Middle East and North Africa.”

But it’s one thing to speculate; it’s something entirely different to have hard proof.

And while speculation was rife that just like the CIA-funded al Qaeda had been used as a facade by the US to achieve its own geopolitical and national interests over the past two decades, so ISIS was nothing more than al Qaeda 2.0, there was no actual evidence of just this.

That may all have changed now when a declassified secret US government document obtained by the public interest law firm, Judicial Watch, shows that Western governments deliberately allied with al-Qaeda and other Islamist extremist groups to topple Syrian dictator Bashir al-Assad.

According to investigative reporter Nafeez Ahmed in Medium, the “leaked document reveals that in coordination with the Gulf states and Turkey, the West intentionally sponsored violent Islamist groups to destabilize Assad, despite anticipating that doing so could lead to the emergence of an ‘Islamic State’ in Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

According to the newly declassified US document, the Pentagon foresaw the likely rise of the ‘Islamic State’ as a direct consequence of the strategy, but described this outcome as a strategic opportunity to “isolate the Syrian regime.” 

And not just that: as we reported last week, now that ISIS is running around the middle east, cutting people’s heads of in 1080p quality and Hollywood-quality (perhaps literally) video, the US has a credible justification to sell billions worth of modern, sophisticated weapons in the region in order to “modernize” and “replenish” the weapons of such US allies as Saudi Arabia, Israel and Iraq.

But that the US military-industrial complex is a winner every time war breaks out anywhere in the world (usually with the assistance of the CIA) is clear to everyone by now. What wasn’t clear is just how the US predetermined the current course of events in the middle east.

Now, thanks to the following declassified report, we have a far better understanding of not only how current events in the middle east came to be, but what America’s puppermaster role leading up to it all, was. 

From Nafeez Ahmed: Secret Pentagon report reveals West saw ISIS as strategic asset Anti-ISIS coalition knowingly sponsored violent extremists to ‘isolate’ Assad, rollback ‘Shia expansion’, originally posted in Medium.


The revelations contradict the official line of Western government on their policies in Syria, and raise disturbing questions about secret Western support for violent extremists abroad, while using the burgeoning threat of terror to justify excessive mass surveillance and crackdowns on civil liberties at home.

Among the batch of documents obtained by Judicial Watch through a federal lawsuit, released earlier this week, is a US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) document then classified as “secret,” dated 12th August 2012.

The DIA provides military intelligence in support of planners, policymakers and operations for the US Department of Defense and intelligence community.

So far, media reporting has focused on the evidence that the Obama administration knew of arms supplies from a Libyan terrorist stronghold to rebels in Syria.

Some outlets have reported the US intelligence community’s internal prediction of the rise of ISIS. Yet none have accurately acknowledged the disturbing details exposing how the West knowingly fostered a sectarian, al-Qaeda-driven rebellion in Syria.

Charles Shoebridge, a former British Army and Metropolitan Police counter-terrorism intelligence officer, said:

“Given the political leanings of the organisation that obtained these documents, it’s unsurprising that the main emphasis given to them thus far has been an attempt to embarrass Hilary Clinton regarding what was known about the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi in 2012. However, the documents also contain far less publicized revelations that raise vitally important questions of the West’s governments and media in their support of Syria’s rebellion.”

The West’s Islamist’s

The newly declassified DIA document from 2012 confirms that the main component of the anti-Assad rebel forces by this time comprised Islamist insurgents affiliated to groups that would lead to the emergence of ISIS. Despite this, these groups were to continue receiving support from Western militaries and their regional allies.

Noting that “the Salafist [sic], the Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI [al-Qaeda in Iraq] are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria,” the document states that “the West, Gulf countries, and Turkey support the opposition,” while Russia, China and Iran “support the [Assad] regime.”

The 7-page DIAdocument states that al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), the precursor to the ‘Islamic State in Iraq,’ (ISI) which became the ‘Islamic State in Iraq and Syria,’ “supported the Syrian opposition from the beginning, both ideologically and through the media.”

The formerly secret Pentagon report notes that the “rise of the insurgency in Syria” has increasingly taken a “sectarian direction,” attracting diverse support from Sunni “religious and tribal powers” across the region.

In a section titled ‘The Future Assumptions of the Crisis,’ the DIA report predicts that while Assad’s regime will survive, retaining control over Syrian territory, the crisis will continue to escalate “into proxy war.”

The document also recommends the creation of “safe havens under international sheltering, similar to what transpired in Libya when Benghazi was chosen as the command center for the temporary government.”

In Libya, anti-Gaddafi rebels, most of whom were al-Qaeda affiliated militias, were protected by NATO ‘safe havens’ (aka ‘no fly zones’).

‘Supporting powers want’ ISIS entity

mediaIn a strikingly prescient prediction, the Pentagon document explicitly forecasts the probable declaration of “an Islamic State through its union with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria.”

Nevertheless, “Western countries, the Gulf states and Turkey are supporting these efforts” by Syrian “opposition forces” fighting to “control the eastern areas (Hasaka and Der Zor), adjacent to Western Iraqi provinces (Mosul and Anbar):”

“… there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist Principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran).”

The secret Pentagon document thus provides extraordinary confirmation that the US-led coalition currently fighting ISIS, had three years ago welcomed the emergence of an extremist “Salafist Principality” in the region as a way to undermine Assad, and block off the strategic expansion of Iran. Crucially, Iraq is labeled as an integral part of this “Shia expansion.”

The establishment of such a “Salafist Principality” in eastern Syria, the DIA document asserts, is “exactly” what the “supporting powers to the [Syrian] opposition want.” Earlier on, the document repeatedly describes those “supporting powers” as “the West, Gulf countries, and Turkey.”

Further on, the document reveals that Pentagon analysts were acutely aware of the dire risks of this strategy, yet ploughed ahead anyway.

The establishment of such a “Salafist Principality” in eastern Syria, it says, would create “the ideal atmosphere for AQI to return to its old pockets in Mosul and Ramadi.” Last summer, ISIS conquered Mosul in Iraq, and just this month has also taken control of Ramadi.

Such a quasi-state entity will provide:

“… a renewed momentum under the presumption of unifying the jihad among Sunni Iraq and Syria, and the rest of the Sunnis in the Arab world against what it considers one enemy. ISI could also declare an Islamic State through its union with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria, which will create grave danger in regards to unifying Iraq and the protection of territory.”

The 2012 DIA document is an Intelligence Information Report (IIR), not a “finally evaluated intelligence” assessment, but its contents are vetted before distribution. The report was circulated throughout the US intelligence community, including to the State Department, Central Command, the Department of Homeland Security, the CIA, FBI, among other agencies.

ISIS1Why is this important? It shows that extreme Muslim terrorists – salafists, Muslims Brotherhood, and AQI (i.e. Al Qaeda in Iraq) – have always been the “major forces driving the insurgency in Syria.”

This verifies what the alternative media has been saying for years: there aren’t any moderate rebels in Syria (and see this, this and this).

ISIS-2Yes, you read that correctly:

there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist Principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime ….

In response to my questions about the strategy, the British government simply denied the Pentagon report’s startling revelations of deliberate Western sponsorship of violent extremists in Syria. A British Foreign Office spokesperson said:

“AQ and ISIL are proscribed terrorist organisations. The UK opposes all forms of terrorism. AQ, ISIL, and their affiliates pose a direct threat to the UK’s national security. We are part of a military and political coalition to defeat ISIL in Iraq and Syria, and are working with international partners to counter the threat from AQ and other terrorist groups in that region. In Syria we have always supported those moderate opposition groups who oppose the tyranny of Assad and the brutality of the extremists.”

The DIA did not respond to request for comment.

Strategic asset for regime-change

Security analyst Shoebridge, however, who has tracked Western support for Islamist terrorists in Syria since the beginning of the war, pointed out that the secret Pentagon intelligence report exposes fatal contradictions at the heart of official pronunciations:

“Throughout the early years of the Syria crisis, the US and UK governments, and almost universally the West’s mainstream media, promoted Syria’s rebels as moderate, liberal, secular, democratic, and therefore deserving of the West’s support. Given that these documents wholly undermine this assessment, it’s significant that the West’s media has now, despite their immense significance, almost entirely ignored them.”

us-allies-displaying-severed-headsAccording to Brad Hoff, a former US Marine who served during the early years of the Iraq War and as a 9/11 first responder at the Marine Corps Headquarters in Battalion Quantico from 2000 to 2004, the just released Pentagon report for the first time provides stunning affirmation that:

“US intelligence predicted the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL or ISIS), but instead of clearly delineating the group as an enemy, the report envisions the terror group as a US strategic asset.”

Hoff, who is managing editor of Levant Report — an online publication run by Texas-based educators who have direct experience of the Middle East?—?points out that the DIA document “matter-of-factly” states that the rise of such an extremist Salafist political entity in the region offers a “tool for regime change in Syria.”

The DIA intelligence report shows, he said, that the rise of ISIS only became possible in the context of the Syrian insurgency—“there is no mention of US troop withdrawal from Iraq as a catalyst for Islamic State’s rise, which is the contention of innumerable politicians and pundits.” The report demonstrates that:

“The establishment of a ‘Salafist Principality’ in Eastern Syria is ‘exactly’ what the external powers supporting the opposition want (identified as ‘the West, Gulf Countries, and Turkey’) in order to weaken the Assad government.”

The rise of a Salafist quasi-state entity that might expand into Iraq, and fracture that country, was therefore clearly foreseen by US intelligence as likely—but nevertheless strategically useful— blowback from the West’s commitment to “isolating Syria.”


Critics of the US-led strategy in the region have repeatedly raised questions about the role of coalition allies in intentionally providing extensive support to Islamist terrorist groups in the drive to destabilize the Assad regime in Syria.

The conventional wisdom is that the US government did not retain sufficient oversight on the funding to anti-Assad rebel groups, which was supposed to be monitored and vetted to ensure that only ‘moderate’ groups were supported.

However, the newly declassified Pentagon report proves unambiguously that years before ISIS launched its concerted offensive against Iraq, the US intelligence community was fully aware that Islamist militants constituted the core of Syria’s sectarian insurgency.

Despite that, the Pentagon continued to support the Islamist insurgency, even while anticipating the probability that doing so would establish an extremist Salafi stronghold in Syria and Iraq.

As Shoebridge told me, “The documents show that not only did the US government at the latest by August 2012 know the true extremist nature and likely outcome of Syria’s rebellion”—namely, the emergence of ISIS?—“but that this was considered an advantage for US foreign policy. This also suggests a decision to spend years in an effort to deliberately mislead the West’s public, via a compliant media, into believing that Syria’s rebellion was overwhelmingly ‘moderate.’”

Annie Machon, a former MI5 intelligence officer who blew the whistle in the 1990s on MI6 funding of al-Qaeda to assassinate Libya’s former leader Colonel Gaddafi, similarly said of the revelations:

“This is no surprise to me. Within individual countries there are always multiple intelligence agencies with competing agendas.”

She explained that MI6’s Libya operation in 1996, which resulted in the deaths of innocent people, “happened at precisely the time when MI5 was setting up a new section to investigate al-Qaeda.”

This strategy was repeated on a grand scale in the 2011 NATO intervention in Libya, said Machon, where the CIA and MI6 were:

“… supporting the very same Libyan groups, resulting in a failed state, mass murder, displacement and anarchy. So the idea that elements of the American military-security complex have enabled the development of ISIS after their failed attempt to get NATO to once again ‘intervene’ is part of an established pattern. And they remain indifferent to the sheer scale of human suffering that is unleashed as a result of such game-playing.”

Divide and rule

Several US government officials have conceded that their closest allies in the anti-ISIS coalition were funding violent extremist Islamist groups that became integral to ISIS.

US Vice President Joe Biden, for instance, admitted last year that Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar and Turkey had funneled hundreds of millions of dollars to Islamist rebels in Syria that metamorphosed into ISIS.

But he did not admit what this internal Pentagon document demonstrates?—?that the entire covert strategy was sanctioned and supervised by the US, Britain, France, Israel and other Western powers.

The strategy appears to fit a policy scenario identified by a recent US Army-commissioned RAND Corp report -( Unfolding the Future of the Long War)

The report, published four years before the DIA document, called for the US “to capitalise on the Shia-Sunni conflict by taking the side of the conservative Sunni regimes in a decisive fashion and working with them against all Shiite empowerment movements in the Muslim world.”

The US would need to contain “Iranian power and influence” in the Gulf by “shoring up the traditional Sunni regimes in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Pakistan.” Simultaneously, the US must maintain “a strong strategic relationship with the Iraqi Shiite government” despite its Iran alliance.

The RAND report confirmed that the “divide and rule” strategy was already being deployed “to create divisions in the jihadist camp. Today in Iraq such a strategy is being used at the tactical level.”

isis_tank_raqqa_rtr_img_1The report observed that the US was forming “temporary alliances” with al-Qaeda affiliated “nationalist insurgent groups” that have fought the US for four years in the form of “weapons and cash.” Although these nationalists “have cooperated with al-Qaeda against US forces,” they are now being supported to exploit “the common threat that al-Qaeda now poses to both parties.”

The 2012 DIA document, however, further shows that while sponsoring purportedly former al-Qaeda insurgents in Iraq to counter al-Qaeda, Western governments were simultaneously arming al-Qaeda insurgents in Syria.

The revelation from an internal US intelligence document that the very US-led coalition supposedly fighting ‘Islamic State’ today, knowingly created ISIS in the first place, raises troubling questions about recent government efforts to justify the expansion of state anti-terror powers.

In the wake of the rise of ISIS, intrusive new measures to combat extremism including mass surveillance, the Orwellian ‘prevent duty’ and even plans to enable government censorship of broadcasters, are being pursued on both sides of the Atlantic, much of which disproportionately targets activists, journalists and ethnic minorities, especially Muslims.

Yet the new Pentagon report reveals that, contrary to Western government claims, the primary cause of the threat comes from their own deeply misguided policies of secretly sponsoring Islamist terrorism for dubious geopolitical purposes.

terroristsIn other words, the powers supporting the Syrian opposition – the West, our Gulf allies, and Turkey wanted an Islamic caliphate in order to challenge Syrian president Assad.

Sure, top U.S. generals – and vice president Vice President Joe Biden – have said that America’s closest allies support ISIS.  And mainstream American media have called for direct support of ISIS.

But the declassified DIA documents show that the U.S. and the West supported ISIS at its inception … as a way to isolate the Syrian government.  And see this.

This is a big deal.  A former British Army and Metropolitan Police counter-terrorism intelligence officer and a former MI5 officer confirm that the newly-released documents are a smoking gun.

This is a train wreck long in the making.





Brad Hoff – Levant Report

Secret Pentagon Report

Declassified U.S. Government Documents

US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA)

MI6 ‘halted bid to arrest bin Laden’ | Politics | The Guardian

Anas al-Liby – The Shaylergate Files – How MI6 Sponsored …

“Spies, Lies and Whistleblowers” – the Gaddafi Plot chapters

MI6 Funded Islamic Extremists & al Qaeda to Assassinate …


Anbar First, Mosul Never? Iraq’s Strategy for Defeating ISIS …

Putin: ISIL Financed by 40 Countries, including G20 Member States


, , ,

PutinPutin said at the G20 summit that Russia has presented examples of terrorism financing by individual businessmen from 40 countries, including from member states of the G20.

“I provided examples related to our data on the financing of ‘Islamic State’ units by natural persons in various countries. The financing comes from 40 countries, as we established, including some G20 members,” Putin told reporters following the summit.

ISILThe fight against terrorism was a key topic at the summit, according to the Russian leader.

“This topic (the war on the terror) was crucial. Especially after the Paris tragedy, we all understand that the means of financing terrorism should be severed,” the Russian president said.

Russia has also presented satellite images and aerial photos showing the true scale of the ‘Islamic State’ oil trade.

“I’ve demonstrated the pictures from space to our colleagues, which clearly show the true size of the illegal trade of oil and petroleum products market. Car convoys stretching for dozens of kilometers, going beyond the horizon when seen from a height of four-five thousand meters,” Putin told reporters after the G20 summit.

The Russian president also said that Syrian opposition is ready to launch an anti-ISIL operation if Russia provides air support.

“A part of the Syrian opposition considers it possible to begin military actions against ISIL with the assistance of the Russian air forces, and we are ready to provide that assistance,” the Russian president said.

Cooperation With the US

Russian President Vladimir Putin said Monday that the United States has shown a certain willingness to resume cooperation with Russia in several areas.

G20“It seemed to me that, at least at an expert level, at the level of discussing problems, there was, indeed, a clear interest in resuming work in many areas, including the economy, politics, and the security sphere,” Putin told reporters.

Vladimir Putin said that Russia needs support from the US, Saudi Arabia and Iran in the fight against terrorism.

“It’s not the time to debate who is more effective in the fight against ISIL, what we need to do is consolidate our efforts,” president Putin added.

The Russian president hopes that the work with the G20 colleagues in the fight against terrorism will continue.

“I think that cooperation in fighting terrorism is very important,” Vladimir Putin told reporters.

The work to create the list of terrorist organizations in Syria is being carried out on the level of foreign ministers, Russian President Vladimir Putin said Monday.

“With regard to Syria, here we should, first of all, decide, and now the foreign ministers are working on this, what groups we consider to be terrorist organizations, and which can be attributed to the armed, but still ‘healthy’ part of the Syrian opposition,” Putin told reporters following the G20 Summit in Antalya, Turkey.

Related Videos:







Uprootedpalestinians’s Blog –

ISIL Financed by 40 Countries

Related Articles

Paris Attack Reported Before it Happened


Paris tweetPZFeed Ebooks on Twitter: “BREAKING: Death toll from Paris Terror Attack at least 120 with 270 others injured at 11:44 p.m – 11 Nov 2015.

This is really strange, the Paris attack was reported 2 days before it actually happened and no this screenshot is not photoshopped at all you can check out the link to the post on twitter and that post is still up there right now check it out have a look its so strange and paste link to see the live tweet)

Notice the date (above)? 11:44 P.M. – NOVEMBER 11th, 2015 2 DAYS BEFORE THE ATTACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The massacre in Paris is reported to have occurred at 21:16 (9:16 p.m.)CET.

By 23:06 Wikipedia had an article up that is extremely detailed, containing statements from a former French President and a complete outline of events at several locations, matters that the press I read had not by then reported.

It piqued my interest that an article would be up on Wikipedia within two hours of the event happening. So I went there.

I began reading the current version of the article and then decided to read a much earlier version. I chose the 23:18 version for this article, not overly consciously. At that point I did not understand very much.

By the time I got myself organized here, I saw that the earliest versions of the article had just been erased from Wikipedia’s change record. Everything before 00:00 was erased from the record, preventing access to the originals of the story. That aroused my suspicions immediately.

(That list of deleted versions was gotten again by going to the user page of the person who wrote the article, known only by his number The list appeared there and the articles proved linkable and recoverable. You can reach them, until they’re taken down, by clicking on the list given in Footnote 1.)

The 23:18 version includes discussions of the hostage-taking, complete with an approximate number of hostages involved (60), as well as detailed accounts of events at several locations. It even has a detailed bibliography. How could your average Wikipedia author have done this incredible piece of work and in less than two hours? Obviously this was not your average Wikipedia author.

You’re invited to read this early version of the Wikipedia article, which appears at the bottom of this post.

Revisions were subsequently made to the article. But the storyline it established, which is undoubtedly why it was written in the first place and gotten into Wikipedia so quickly, did not change through any of those revisions. It’s the storyline that the article is designed to make stick in the public mind.

As yet (00:41 PM CET), the newspapers are reporting simply bullet lists of events which they’re aware of only very sketchily. But Wikipedia has extensive coverage. within a couple of hours. That just did not sit with me and I continued to investigate.

In some cases, reports on the cabal’s handiwork have been posted and time-stamped before the event. That has not happened in this case. The black-ops people seem to have gotten better at their handiwork. Nonetheless such full reportage only roughly two hours after the event, for me, still pointed to collusion.

Or did they?

On closer inspection, after this article was initially written, I’ve found a comment so implausible that it closed the case for me.

In the 23:06 version is this comment:

“In a televised statement at approximately 23:58 (11:58 p.m.), French President François Hollande declared a state of emergency and closing of borders for the whole of France.[7]”

How could the writer report what President Hollande said at 23:58 (11:58 p.m.), as if it’s a fait accompli, when he’s writing at 23:06 (11:06 p.m.), before it happened?  Does this not remind us of the BBC reporting the fall of Building 7 with Building 7 still in the background?

The fact that it was dropped from the change record also makes the article difficult for the researcher to retrieve. Was it dropped to cover their tracks?

I find this circumstance to be so implausible as to establish the lack of credibility of the Wikipedia article.

I furthermore cite this as evidence that the event was pre-planned.

There’s too many discrepancies.

Check it out

November 2015 Paris attacks: Beginning at 21:20 CET (9:20 p.m.)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
November 2015 Paris attacks

Locations of the attacks
Location Paris, France
Saint-Denis, France
1: near Stade de France
2: Rue Bichat and rue Alibert (Le Petit Cambodge, Le Carillon)
3: Rue de la Fontaine-au-Roi (Casa Nostra)
4: The Bataclan theatre
5: Rue de Charonne (La Belle Équipe)
Stars: Individual suicide bombings (Bataclan not included)
Date 13 November 2015 –
14 November 2015
21:20 – 00:58 (CET)
Attack type
Mass shooting, hit-and-run tactics, bombing, hostage-taking, suicide attack
Deaths 139, of which

  • 129 immediate victims:[2]
    • Bataclan: 89
    • Le Carillon and Le Petit Cambodge: 15
    • La Casa Nostra: 5
    • Stade de France: 1
    • La Belle Équipe: 19
  • 7 perpetrators[3]
Non-fatal injuries
352,[4] including 96 seriously; 3 have reportedly died in hospital after the event.[5]
Suspected perpetrators
Bilal Hadfi, Ahmed Almuhamed, Samy Amimour, Omar Ismaël Mostefai, Ibrahim Abdeslam, Abbdulakbak B., at least two others (allegedly working for Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant). At least 12 others are suspected in supporting roles.[6][7][8]

On the evening of 13 November 2015, a series of coordinated terrorist attacks—consisting of mass shootings, suicide bombings, and hostage-taking—occurred in Paris, France, and Saint-Denis, one of its northern suburbs. Beginning at 21:20 CET, there were three separate suicide bombings outside the Stade de France and, nearer central Paris, there were mass shootings and a suicide bombing at four different locations.[12] In addition, the deadliest attack took place at the Bataclan theatre, where attackers took hostages and engaged in a stand-off with police which ended at 00:58 on 14 November. The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) claimed responsibility for the attacks.[13][14][15]

The reason for mounting such an article to places like Wikipedia (I assume there are other similarly-located articles as well) is to “fix” their version of events, on influential and accepted Internet information sources. The public trusts Wikipedia. Who would ever think it was being used to sell a black operation?

Some people may remember the New York pedestrian on 9/11 who, immediately after the “planes” crashed, was interviewed and said that the bombings were probably the work of terrorists. He was later shown to be a plant. And the television commentators who right away attributed 9/11 to Osama bin Laden? Also plants.

It was in fact the government who engineered 9/11. But these accomplices were used to establish the storyline of terrorism in the public’s mind from the outset. Once a theme has set in the public’s mind, officials can use it to label an investigator a conspiracy theorist.

Here are indications that the intent of the Wikipedia article was to establish the Muslim/Arab storyline.

The Wikipedia article states:

One report stated that there might be six gunmen.[10] French radio network Europe 1 reported that as many as three suicide bombers were also involved in the attacks.”

Suicide bombers are usually associated in the public mind with Muslims and Arabs.

Someone who escaped the attack told a journalist that “the attackers mentioned Syria and that there were five or six attackers.”

How did this writer gain access in less than two hours to “someone who escaped the attack” while listening to radio broadcasts, reading as many articles as he says he did, and writing such a detailed piece? This statement is for me not probable.

The work that this comment does is that it introduces a second element to the storyline: association with Syria. Watch for the Illuminati to say that ISIS has established itself in France and that these events were their calling card.

The storyline is further developed later:

French President François Hollande issued a statement, saying the “French people must remain strong in the face of terrorism.”

We’ve now had it “established” that the attack was by terrorists, probably from Syria, including some suicide bombers.

One element that was dropped from the 23:18 version, that is present in the 23:06 version, (2) is the statement: “The terrorists shouted ‘Allahu Akbar’ and ‘This is for Syria.’”  I’m not sure why they dropped this item. Surely it was a clincher, but they did.

The fact that this comment was dropped from accounts after 00:00 may explain why the earlier accounts were deleted from the change record. I think they feared being seen as stage-directing if the picture of terrorists shouting “Allahu Akbar” was left in. Being dropped from the change record, the statement was henceforth not available to the researcher. Or so it may have been thought.

Conclusion from all of this? Obviously. It was the Muslims and Arabs.

Now what I consider to be the fear-mongering began:

“Former French Prime Minister François Fillon also issued a statement, saying that ‘war is among us.’[22] Authorities urged residents throughout Paris to remain indoors for their own safety.[7]

War is among us! Is that not designed to raise fear in people? If that doesn’t get them going, the hostage-taking will.

“In response to the attacks, France’s borders were closed, and the national military was called in.[23] The country was also placed in a state of emergency.”

The country is under a state of emergency. Civil rights have been curtailed. Many people have lost their lives. A great deal of fear has probably been generated both by the attacks and the reportage. And we have an ongoing hostage drama to keep the public’s attention riveted.

I can’t think of circumstances that would be more compelling.

Will this false-flag operation work? Will it fool the French people?

Many people have lost their lives in this latest act of state terrorism. Others are being held hostage. We owe it to all of them to expose the true nature of this false-flag attack on the French people and the world. And then to remain calm.

I urge the people of France to enact a campaign, whose motto is simply: “Stop.” And then explore all the possibilities that simply getting people to stop may bring.

Stop acts of state terrorism.  Stop attacks on people’s civil rights. Stop demeaning Muslims and Arabs by falsely representing them as the culprits when it’s our own governments who are behind these acts of violence and massacre.

I request that others take another piece of this story and continue the unraveling until the whole black operation is laid bare.

I don’t think an operation like this could have been staged without leaving plenty of clues about its fabrication.


(1) The user who wrote the story is identified as

On’s page, this list of versions that he wrote have been erased:

(2) Available here: “23:06: November 2015 Paris Attacks” at

* * *

Thinking that someone had erased this 23:18 version of the story, I reproduced it here:


Government response

French President François Hollande issued a statement, saying the French people must remain strong in the face of terrorism. Former French Prime Minister François Fillon also issued a statement, saying that “war is among us.”[22] Authorities urged residents throughout Paris to remain indoors for their own safety.[7]

In response to the attacks, France’s borders were closed, and the national military was called in.[23] The country was also placed in a state of emergency.[7]



Could the Paris attack be a set up? to blame Muslims and get all the world to go against Islam, I guess we will just have to be patient to know the real truth about all these incidents that have occurred.







Paris Attack

Uprootedpalestinians’s Blog –

RT Just Destroyed Fake News on Paris, ISIS and the NWO …

Terror in Paris: What we know so far



Using Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty to legalize the war against ISIS


, , ,

France to Invoke Article 5 of NATO Treaty - NATO compelled to go to war against ISIS -- U.S. may "Intern" all Muslims! | Anonymiss 68 |

The recent terrorist attack against France gives the Obama administration an opportunity to legalize its previously unconstitutional war against the so-called  Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS). Up until now, the war has been illegal because the president lacks congressional authorization for it. Assuming (as is highly likely), that ISIS was indeed behind the attacks, “the United States has a legal obligation” to help defend France under Article 5 of the 1949 North Atlantic Treaty, which created the NATO alliance. Here is the relevant text:

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defense recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

nato1France is a signatory of the North Atlantic treaty, and Friday’s terrorist attack surely qualifies as an “armed attack against [France] in Europe.” Therefore, the US now has a legal obligation to consider the attack against France as an attack against the US itself, and to “assist” France with “such action as it deems necessary,” including “the use of armed force.”

Some scholars and jurists contend that it isn’t possible for a nation-state to be in a true state of war with a private terrorist organization. Even if this is correct, by this point ISIS qualifies as a state-like entity, having seized control of a large portions of Syria and Iraq. In any event, the NATO treaty applies to all “armed attacks” on the signatories in “in Europe or North America,” regardless of the qualify as a war or not. The NATO allies did in fact invoke Article 5 after the 9/11 attacks against the US, an incident with obvious some similarities to the attack on France.

Article VI of the Constitution makes treaties the “supreme law of the land” if they were made “under the authority of the United States.” This, at the very least, allows the president, with Senate ratification, to make legally binding commitments to use the powers of the federal government, which clearly include the power to wage war, and otherwise use military force. Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty is such a commitment, and it pretty clearly applies in this case.

The Alliance could formally invoke Article 5 by doing so at a meeting organized in accordance with Article 4, which requires member states to “consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened.” However, the US likely has a legal obligation to aid France under Article 5 even in the absence of an Article 4 consultation.

Article 5 provides a much stronger justification for the war against ISIS than the previous extremely dubious rationalizations presented by the Obama administration. But it cannot retroactively legalize the President’s previous illegal actions, or the similarly unconstitutional war against Libya in 2011.

Citing Article 5 might not be an attractive option for the Obama administration, because it might be seen as an implicit admission that the war was previously illegal (as it in fact was). For this reason, they might well decide not to rely on it. But it is nonetheless the only sound legal justification for continuing the war against ISIS, unless and until the president gets a new authorization from Congress.

nato slide_5As I have previously explained, the president’s failure to get congressional authorization for the wars against ISIS and Libya is not just a purely legal problem. In addition to creating terrible precedents for the future, it also has made it more difficult to build the kind of political consensus needed to wage war effectively. Invoking our Article 5 obligations to a key NATO ally may not fully cure these problems. But it would at least be a valuable step in the right direction.

UPDATE: James Stavridis presents a related argument for invoking Article 5 in this recent article in Foreign Policy. GOP presidential candidates John Kasich and Marco Rubio have also urged NATO action under Article 5. None of them, however, has noted the implications for the domestic constitutional rationale for the war.

UPDATE #2: Obviously, it might be politically difficult to rely on Article 5 if France does not want NATO assistance for whatever reason. However, President Francois Hollande has already called Friday’s attack an “act of war” pinned the responsibility on ISIS, and stated his determination to wage the war aggressively. Most likely, therefore, the French would welcome Article 5 support from the US and other NATO allies.

UPDATE: International law scholar Julian Ku has put up a critique of this post, arguing that Article 5 is not enough to justify US intervention against ISIS without additional congressional authorization:

I agree with Ilya that the Obama Administration’s current domestic legal justification for the war against the Islamic State is sketchy at best. But I am not sure I agree with him that Article V should be read as a “pre-authorization” for the President to use military force without going back to Congress for a specific authorization…..

I agree that the horrible Paris attacks would constitute an “armed attack” on a member of NATO “in Europe or North America.” But I don’t think Article V requires the other NATO members to provide military assistance. Rather, “if such an armed attack occurs,” a NATO member “will assist the Party so attacked [France]…by taking forthwith…such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force.” (emphasis added).

I read this language as requiring the U.S (for instance) to assist the attacked party (France), and that this assistance could “include the use of armed force.” But I don’t think it has to.

Moreover, Article IX of the North Atlantic Treaty states that “[t]his Treaty shall be ratified and its provisions carried out by the Parties in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.” (emphasis added). I read this as requiring Parties to carry out provisions like Article V “in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.” If you are someone who believes that Congress must authorize the use of force by the President in most cases, than this language would mean that the President has to go back to Congress.

Julian makes a reasonable point. But I remain unconvinced. While the use of force is discretionary under Article 5, treating an attack on an ally within the designated area as if it were an attack on the US itself is not: “The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all.” And in the event of an enemy attack on the US itself, the president has the legal authority to use force of his own volition, without additional congressional authorization. While the president may choose not to use force (and Congress may choose to forbid him to do so), the proper invocation of Article 5 does give him the same authority to use force as he would have in the event of an attack on the United States itself. All of this is in accordance with US “constitutional processes,” just as Article 11 of the North Atlantic Treaty requires. By contrast, when Obama attacked Libya in 2011 and when he began the war against ISIS last year, there was no comparable treaty obligation.

Julian also claims that “the main legal purpose of Article V was (is) to allow NATO countries to act consistently with the U.N. Charter’s limitations on the use of force (such as they are).” I disagree. The true main purpose of Article 5 is to commit the signatories to a system of collective defense against attack – a commitment originally necessitated by the threat of the Soviet Union, but not limited to that specific danger. Empowering the president to assist an ally under attack without having to seek congressional authorization.




Article 11 of NATO:

This Treaty shall be ratified and its provisions carried out by the Parties in accordance with their respective constitutional processes. The instruments of ratification shall be deposited as soon as possible with the Government of the United States of America, which will notify all the other signatories of each deposit. The Treaty shall enter into force between the States which have ratified it as soon as the ratifications of the majority of the signatories, including the ratifications of Belgium, Canada, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States, have been deposited and shall come into effect with respect to other States on the date of the deposit of their ratifications. (3)



North Atlantic Treaty


Article 5 – Nato

Article 4

Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty

The Law of the Executive Branch: Presidential Power

Could an active duty American soldier sue the government

Operation Odyssey Dawn (Libya): Background and Issues for …

Congressional Oversight of Executive Agreements …

Legalize the war

Will France Call on NATO to Join the Fight Against ISIS …

NATO’s Turn to Attack | Foreign Policy

Isis attack on Paris may be an ‘act of war’ but retaliation may …

France to Invoke Article 5 of NATO Treaty – NATO compelled …

Alliance History and the Future NATO

Nato’s Role in the Collective Security System

North Atlantic Treaty Organization: NATO

48 Hours BEFORE Paris Attacks, Twitter Account Posts Death and Injury Toll from “Paris Terror Attack”

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

As the Iraqi civil war rages on, the Islamic State in Iraq and ..

CIA director anticipates more ISIS attacks ‘in the pipeline’Putin: ISIS financed from 40 countries, including G20 members

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

The Real Debate: 2 Very Different World Views On Terrorism

ISIS Claims Responsibility, Calling Paris Attacks ‘First of the ..

ISIS released a statement on Saturday November 14th …

U.S. Warplanes Strike #ISIS #Oil Trucks in Syria http://nyti ..

New ISIS video warns of attack on Washington – CNN Video

Why John Kerry and the French president are calling ISIS “Daesh”

Who’s Funding ISIS? Wealthy Gulf ‘Angel Investors,’ Officials …

America Created Al-Qaeda and the ISIS Terror Group

Newly-Declassified U.S. Government Documents: The West ..

Secret Pentagon Report Reveals US “Created” ISIS As A …

War on Terror



Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,401 other followers