Denver KNUS host Peter Boylesand I had another rattlin’ good chat today about the continuing cover-up of 9/11. Boyles has made himself an expert on the details of the Saudi involvement and is doing a great job of hammering this issue week after week. I commented that the Bush administration kept the lid on 28 pages of the congressional report in part so that they could demonize Saddam Hussein and drag the nation to war against Iraq in 2003.
Boyles talked about how key accusations against Iraq were produced by torture. I commented, “Rather than exposing ticking time bombs, torture is a helluva lot more likely to gin up false accusations that the governments uses to go and kill vast numbers of innocent people. I have been appalled that more Americans have not been mortified by the evidence of the U.S. torture after 9/11.”
Boyles asked why I thought Obama has not brought out the 28 pages on the Saudi involvement on 9/11. I said it reminds me of what Lyndon Johnson said about another senator when he was Senate Majority Leader in the 1950s: “I’ve got his pecker in my pocket.” I added, “Presidents get in the habit of covering up the lies of prior administrations – that’s how the government maintains its credibility. It is in the interest of every president for people not to recognize that previous presidents were pathological liars on some issues.”
*”People should not trust the government to be more honest in the future than it was in the past. How long will it take us to learn of the lies used to justify U.S. bombing in Libya and Syria?”
*”Folks need to have a radical skepticism when politicians are urging us on to war. Americans have not had that skepticism and that is part of the reason politicians have done so much damage.”
*”There are a number of Middle Eastern nations that have done false flag operations that tried to pull the United States into their conflicts. The U.S. has been conned again and again by nations in that part of the world. It is not likely that our policymakers will become savvy enough to figure out the next con.”
*”Since 9/11, the government has been off the leash because the media was the dog that didn’t bark.” Continue
Interviewed Tuesday on Fox Business, three-time presidential candidate Ron Paul rejected the ongoing United States intervention in Syria, stating emphatically that he sees “no reason in the world for us to be involved in Syria.”
Referring to the US government’s oft-repeated directive that Syria President Bashar al-Assad “must go” — be removed from power in the Middle East nation — Paul explains in the interview that it looks like that effort will fail while creating “a lot bigger chance that this is going to be a conflict between Russia and the United States.”
In a newly published op-ed for the Financial Times, former official in the Johnson and Carter Administrations Zbigniew Brzezinski urged that US to use “strategic boldness” in confronting Russia, potentially militarily, over their involvement in Syria.
Brzezinski presented Russian airstrikes against Syrian rebel factions as at best a display of “Russian military incompetence” and at worst a “dangerous desire to highlight American political impotence,” saying America’s credibility is at stake from allowing Russia to strike the rebels the US previously armed, terming them “American assets.”
He called for the US to openly demand Russia unconditionally halt all such moves, saying Russian warplanes in Syria are “vulnerable, isolated geographically from their homeland” and could be “disarmed” by force if the Russians don’t comply with US demands.
Perhaps most bizarrely, Brzezinski closes with talk of calling for Russia to coordinate with the US in the war against ISIS, even though Russia has been openly offering this for weeks over US objections. He further suggests coaxing China into joining the war against ISIS as well, saying China would likely be interested in “increasing its own regional influence.”
Ultimately, the long-time policy adviser’s position seems, like so many of his recent missives, to center around deliberately antagonizing Russia. He advocates taking enormous risks of a large military confrontation with Russia, and his end-game goal is something Russia is already offering at any rate, and which the Obama Administration keeps spurning.
Formally linking the border control operation along the US-Mexican border with the global US war on terror is a long-standing goal of a lot of hawks, and it doesn’t take much of a comment out of an official for people to start trying to make connections.
Today’s effort comes from the Washington Times, where comments from a Texas Department of Public Safety official about the need to debrief Urdu speakers in relation to border security matters. Urdu is the national language of Pakistan, and is also spoken in parts of India.
Which immediately became “Islamic State terrorists” trying to infiltrate through Mexico, even though ISIS has never been reported to have much of a presence in Pakistan or India, and the fact that someone speaks Urdu is far from indicative of an ISIS connection.
Still, that doesn’t stop hype about America being open to “jihadist attack” from Mexico, and the Department of Public Safety is cited, way at the end of the article, conceding that there is “no credible evidence” of anyone from ISIS coming into Texas from Mexico. That, however, wouldn’t have been nearly as exciting of a headline.
Before the 2003 Shock and Awe bombing in Iraq, a group of activists living in Baghdad would regularly go to city sites that were crucial for maintaining health and well-being in Baghdad, such as hospitals, electrical facilities, water purification plants, and schools, and string large vinyl banners between the trees outside these buildings which read: “To Bomb This Site Would Be A War Crime.” We encouraged people in U.S. cities to do the same, trying to build empathy for people trapped in Iraq, anticipating a terrible aerial bombing.
Tragically, sadly, the banners must again condemn war crimes, this time echoing international outcry because in an hour of airstrikes this past Saturday morning, the US repeatedly bombed a Doctors Without Borders hospital in Kunduz, a facility that served the fifth largest city in Afghanistan and the surrounding region.
US/NATO forces carried out the airstrike at about 2AM on October 3rd. Doctors Without Borders had already notified the US, NATO and Afghan forces of their geographical coordinates to clarify that their compound, the size of a football field, was a hospital. When the first bombs hit, medical staff immediately phoned NATO headquarters to report the strike on its facility, and yet strikes continued, at 15 minute intervals, until 3:15 a.m., killing 22 people. 12 of the dead were medical staff; ten were patients, and three of the patients were children. At least 37 more people were injured. One survivor said that the first section of the hospital to be hit was the Intensive Care Unit.
Last week former defense minister Jason Kenney said if re-elected the Conservatives would significantly expand Canada’s special forces. Kenney said they would add 665 members to the Canadian Armed Forces Special Operations Command (CANSOFCOM) over the next seven years.
Why? What do these "special forces" do? Who decides when and where to deploy them? For what purpose? These are all questions left unanswered (and not even asked in the mainstream media).
What we do know is that since the mid-2000s Canada’s special forces have steadily expanded to 1,900 members. In 2006 the military launched CANSOFCOM to oversee JTF2, the Special Operations Aviation Squadron, Canadian Joint Incident Response Unit and Special Operations Regiment. Begun that year, the Special Operations Regiment’s 750 members receive similar training to JTF2 commandos, the most secretive and skilled unit of the Canadian Armed Forces. After having doubled from 300 to 600 men, JTF2 is set to move from Ottawa to a 400-acre compound near Trenton, Ontario, at a cost of $350 million.